JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order No. PSA/173 dated 01.09.2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as “impugned order of detention”) issued by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kathua whereby he has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace.

02. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the ground that whole of the material, forming the basis of grounds of detention, has not been furnished to him, which has deprived him from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It has also been contended that the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier of SSP, Kathua. It has also been contended the grounds of detention have not been explained to the petitioner in a language which he understands. It has also been contended that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority inasmuch as in the grounds of detention there is no mention of the fact relating to acquittal of the petitioner in as many as three out of six FIRs, which find mention in the grounds of detention. It has further been contended that the activities in which the petitioner is alleged to have indulged do not warrant passing of an order of preventive detention.

03. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority viz respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that whole of the material, on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated, has been provided to the petitioner and contents of the same have been explained to the detenue in Hindi/Dogri language, which he understands. It has been further submitted that all the statutory and legal requirements were followed by the respondents while executing the detention order against the petitioner. The respondents have also produced detention record to lend support to their contentions.

04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record, which has been produced by the respondents.

05. Although a number of grounds have been urged by the petitioner for assailing the impugned order of detention yet learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the following grounds:

(i) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority inasmuch as in the grounds of detention there is no mention of the fact relating to acquittal of the petitioner in as many as three out of six FIRs, which find mention in the grounds of detention;

(ii) That activities in which the petitioner is alleged to have indulged do not warrant passing of an order of preventive detention because the same pertain to ordinary criminal activities directed against the individuals and not against society as a whole.

06. In the context of the first ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the grounds of detention would reveal that it bears reference to as many as six FIRs bearing Nos. 132/2015 of Police Station, Kathua, 40/2020 of Police Station, Lakhanpur, 14/2022 of Police Station, Lakhanpur, 71/2022 of Police Station, Lakhanpur, 143/2025 of Police Station, Kathua and 328/2025 of Police Station, Kathua. The petitioner has placed on record copies of court orders, which reveal that he has been acquitted in cases arising out of FIR No. 40/2020 of Police Station, Lakhanpur, FIR No. 14/2022 of Police Station, Lakhanpur and FIR No. 71/2022 of Police Station, Lakhanpur. All these facts are missing in the grounds of detention and even in the police dossier, there is no mention of these facts. Thus, the sponsoring agency as well as the detaining authority has shown complete non-awareness about the acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid three FIRs. The acquittal of a detenue in a criminal case has a