JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SEKHRI, J.

1. Challenge in this petition ha s been thrown to a detention order No. 04/PSA of 2025 dated 29.05.2025, passed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Samba, under Section 8 of Public Safety Act, 1978 [“PSA”], vide which petitioner came to be detained.

2. Background facts of the case are that Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba, vide his communication dated 26.05.2025, submitted a dossier regarding illegal activities of the petitioner and recommended his detention under PSA. It was alleged that petitioner being involved in a series of criminal activities was a threat to life and liberty of people.

3. The sponsoring authority recommended detention of the petitioner on the basis of 05 criminal cases registered against him viz; FIR No. 35/2021 under Section 188 IPC and 11 PCA Act of P.S. Ghagwal, FIR No. 73/2021 under Section 188 IPC and 11 PCA Act of P.S. Ghagwal, FIR No. 300/2022 under Section 188 IPC and 11 PCA Act of P.S. Samba, FIR No. 26/2024 under Section 188 IPC, 11 PCA Act, 03 PDPP, 50/52/54 of Animal Transport Act, 1978 of P.S. Ghagwal and FIR No. 24/2025 under Section 223 BNS, 11 PCA Act, 03 PDPP and 50/52/54 Animal Transport Act, 1978 of P.S. Ghagwal.

4. The detaining authority-respondent No. 2 on perusal of the dossier came to the conclusion that involvement of the petitioner in 05 FIRs for the offences mentioned therein itself means that he is not afraid of the legal course of action against him. According to the detaining authority, petitioner is a habitual offender and incorrigible criminal, having no fear of law and it was apprehended that there was every likelihood that activity of the petitioner may lead to disturbance of public order and tranquillity out of communal tension. The detaining authority is of the view that petitioner being a habitual bovine smuggler, his activities tend to hurt religious feelings of a community. According to respondent No. 2, motive of the petitioner is not only to create enmity between communities, but to form a deep rooted nexus, by encouraging criminal minded people of the area to join him in bovine smuggling in an organized manner in the area. On the basis of his subjective satisfaction, impugned order came to be passed by the detaining authority, whereby petitioner was directed to be detained and lodged in jail under PSA.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order of detention inter alia on the following grounds:

(a) That the impugned detention order is bad in the eyes of law.

(b) That, the detention order so passed against the petitioner was not addressed to detune which shows the callousness and non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority on this ground the detention order is required to be quashed.

(c) That the grounds of detention have not been explained to the petitioner/detenue in the language which he understands, as he cannot read and understand the English language, and he can only understand Urdu language. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(d) That the detaining authority has not supplied all the material documents to the petitioner including the dossier, so that he can make effective representative against the order of detention. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(e) It is pertinent to mention here that all these FIRs/cases are based on false and frivols allegations, out of which two are still under investigation, further the petitioner is not involved in the above said FIR referred in the detention order. That as for as the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIRS referred in the detention order are concerned, the same is mater of trial, which is still pending before the concerned Court of law, and the petitioner shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Hence the detention order is liable to be quashed at the earliest.

(f) That petitioner/detenue has been admitted to bail in FIR No.26/2024 vide order dated 04-03-2024 passed by the Court of Ld. Additional Sp