JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged the legality and validity of order No. PSA 08 of 2025 dated 17.05.2025 issued by respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Jammu whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

02. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the grounds that the same has been passed mechanically without proper application of mind. It has been contended that in FIR No. 108/2021 of Police Station, Bari Brahmana, the petitioner has been acquitted, as such, the same could not have been relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention. It has been further contended that at the time of passing of impugned order of detention, the petitioner was already in custody in another FIR, details whereof have not been mentioned in the grounds of detention, as such, the impugned order of detention is vitiated.

03. It has also been contended that allegations leveled against the petitioner in the FIRs, which have been relied upon by the detaining authority in passing the impugned order of detention, are not of such a serious nature as would give rise to apprehension of breach to the public order. It has been further contended that the respondents instead of seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner has resorted to passing of the impugned order of detention, which is not permissible in law. It has been contended that most of the documents, which were forwarded to the petitioner, were not legible as a result of which he could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It has been further contended that the respondents have not adhered to the statutory and constitutional imperatives while executing the warrant of detention against the petitioner.

04. The respondents have contested the petition by filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is a notorious criminal involved in various offences like attempt to murder, assault and criminal trespass by using illegal weapons. It has been submitted that five FIRs are registered against the petitioner and his involvement in these cases clearly depicts that he is a habitual criminal and he has no regard for the law. It has been further submitted that the petitioner poses a serious threat to the maintenance of public order as he is a threat to the society at large. It has been submitted that all the documents including the grounds of detention, PSA warrant, dossier, FIRs and other relevant material have been furnished to the petitioner at the time of execution of warrant of detention and the grounds of detention have been read over and explained to him in Hindi as well as Dogri language.

05. The petitioner also filed his rejoinder affidavit in which besides reiterating the contentions raised in the petition, he has contended that there is no mention of one more FIR bearing No. 75 of 2023 registered against the petitioner with Police Station, Miran Sahib in the grounds of detention and the grounds do not indicate that the petitioner was already in custody in the said FIR at the time of passing of impugned order of detention. It has been submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner was already in custody, there was no compelling reason for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. It has been further contended that on 10.06.2025, the petitioner has made a representation before respondent No. 1, however, the same has not been decided by the respondents.

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

07. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has urged numerous grounds for assailing