JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged detention order No. PSA 09 of 2025 dated 04.06.2025 issued by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Jammu whereby and whereunder the petitioner Aniket Mottan @ Bablu has been placed under detention with a view 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 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 been further contended that the basis of grounds of detention is certain FIRs registered against the petitioner, who has already been enlarged on bail in all the FIRs. It has been contended that the detaining authority has not discussed the conditions of bail in the grounds of detention, which makes the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law.

03. It has been contended that the detaining authority has not informed the petitioner the time limit during which he had to make a representation against the impugned order of detention. It has also been contended that the grounds of detention are replica of the dossier of SSP, Jammu. It has also been contended that the detaining authority has not recorded any satisfaction as to why the normal criminal law is not sufficient to prevent the alleged illegal activities of the petitioner.

04. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority-respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is a habitual criminal in respect of whom substantive law is likely to prove insufficient to restrain him from continuing his criminal activities. It has been contended that the petitioner poses a serious threat to the society and the public order as his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and safety. It has been alleged that repeated involvement of the petitioner in criminal activities clearly shows that he is a grave threat to the society. According to the respondents, the mere fact that the petitioner has been granted bail does not nullify the power of the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. It has been submitted that representation of the petitioner was duly considered and the same was found without any merit. It has been further submitted that all the statutory and constitutional imperatives were strictly adhered to while executing the warrant of detention upon the petitioner. It has been submitted that whole of the material, forming basis of grounds of detention, has been furnished to the petitioner and contents of the same have been read over and explained to him in the language he understands. In order to lend support to their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.

05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record produced by the respondents.

06. The main ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for assailing the impugned order of detention is that representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents with promptitude and this slackness on the part of the respondents vitiates the impugned order of detention.

07. In the above context, if we have a look at the record, the petitioner has made a representation dated 16.07.2025 to District Magistrate, Jammu as well as to the Home Department of the Government. As per the delivery report, the same has been received by the addresses on 18.07.2025. A perusal of the detention record would reveal that Home Department vide its communication dated 22.07.2025 forwarded the representation of the petitioner to Additional Director General of Police, CID, J&K for his comments. The representation, it seems, afte