JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged Order No. PSA No. 11 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025 issued by District Magistrate, Jammu-respondent No. 2 herein whereby petitioner-Mohd. Tahir Pall has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

02. It has been contended by the petitioner that representation filed by him against the impugned order of detention has been considered belatedly by the respondents and while rejecting the same, no reasoned order has been passed. It has been further contended that the impugned order of detention has been issued by respondent No. 2 in a casual and mechanical manner without application of mind inasmuch as the grounds of detention are verbatim reproduction of the dossier prepared by SDPO, City East, Jammu-respondent No. 4 herein who, according to the petitioner, is holding a grudge against him being closely related to persons inimical to the petitioner.

03. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed by respondent No. 2 with a view to put the petitioner behind the bars despite having been bailed out by courts of law in all the FIRs registered against him. It has also been contended that the petitioner even after being bailed out in FIR No. 59 of 2025 of Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu was again taken into custody on the basis of suspicion and was illegally detained by the police till such time the impugned order of detention came to be issued by respondent No. 2 which clearly shows that the action of the respondents is tainted with malafides and the same constitutes colourable exercise of power on the part of the detaining authority.

04. It has been submitted that petitioner had approached the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, seeking directions to the police for his production in the court as he had been illegally detained despite having been bailed out in criminal case registered against him. In the report submitted by the police before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, it was submitted by the police that petitioner had been arrested on the basis of suspicion after his release on bail, which clearly goes on to show that action of the respondents in passing the impugned order of detention is malafide in nature and the same has been issued at the behest of respondent No. 4.

05. Respondent No. 2 has contested the petition by filing the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is a hardcore and habitual criminal, who indulges in heinous crimes in Jammu. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a notorious and hard core criminal, who does not follow the rule of law and his activities are detrimental to the maintenance of public order. According to the respondents, five FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, details whereof are given in the grounds of detention and despite being bailed out in all these FIRs, he has continued his criminal activities, which compelled the detaining authority to pass the impugned detention order so as to prevent the petitioner from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

06. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the detaining authority after arriving at satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner is a grave threat to the society and public order. It has also been submitted that representation submitted by the petitioner was thoroughly examined and the same was rejected whereafter the result of consideration was conveyed to the petitioner through Superintendent, District Jail, Kathua and Tehsildar, Bahu was also instructed to inform the sister of the petitioner. It has been contended that all the statutory and constitutional imperatives have been followed by the respondents while executing the impugned order of detention against the petitioner and he has been