JUDGMENT

1) Impugned in the instant petition, filed on behalf of the petitioner/detenu, under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is the order of detention bearing No. PSA/151 dated 18.03.2025, issued by the respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Kathua (hereinafter referred to as the Detaining Authority for short), in exercise of its powers vested under Section 8 (i) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), whereby the petitioner/detenu was ordered to be detained and lodged in the District Jail Udhampur, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2) On behalf of the petitioner/detenu, issuance of writs in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus, have been sought for quashment of the impugned detention order and consequent release of the petitioner/detenu.

3) The impugned detention order has been challenged through the medium of the instant petition on the grounds, inter alia; that the same has been passed by the learned detaining authority without the application of mind, to all the relevant circumstances lacking requisite subjective satisfaction, as would be clear from the perusal of the grounds of detention compared with the police Dossier which is based on materials extraneous to the scope of the Act. That the grounds basing the order impugned are the exact verbatim of the Police Dossier except few sentences here and there. That it clearly shown that the impugned order has been passed in huff and haste manner, without independent and impartial application of mind by the learned detaining authority which is a strict requirement while determining the legality of a preventive detention order as mandated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as Amina Begum v. Stateof Telangana - 2023 Livelaw (SC) 743 (Para 25). That three FIRs have been registered against the petitioner/detenu out which in FIR No. 07/2010 u/s 298-A/34 RPC of P/S Mohlar he stands acquitted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathoua vide order dated 31.07.2018 by holding that no charges were proved against the petitioner/detenu. That in respect of the other two FIRs, 01/2021 & 09/2021 of P/S Malhar under sections 295-A/439/109 & 456/323/341 IPC respectively also forming the basis of the impugned detention order, it is not mentioned or given consideration to the fact that the petitioner-detenu stands enlarged on bail in both the aforesaid FIRs by the competent Court. That the detaining authority has not applied its mind to ascertain the facts and assume subjective satisfaction before issuing the impugned detention order. That the mention of case FIRs in the grounds of detention, in which the petitioner had already been enlarged on bail, amounts to misrepresentation & suppression of material facts, and shows malafides on part of respondent no. 2. That sponsoring authority did not place the important fact of acquitted of petitioner in case FIR No. 07/2010 of P/S Malhar which could have made a different effect on the subjective satisfaction allegedly assumed by the detaining authority. That the detention order cannot sustain and needs to be quashed. That in F.I.R. Nos 01/2021 & 09/2021 u/s 295-A, 439/109 IPC & 457/323/456/341 IPC respectively the petitioner has been enlarged on bail by JMIC Billawar. That in FIR No. 07/2010 u/s 298-A/341 RPC of P/S Malhar, the petitioner has been already acquitted. That the offences under case FIR Nos. 01/2021 & 09 of 2021 by no stretch of legal interpretation or judicial precedent, fall within the ambit of "Security of the State" which forms the sole basis for the impugned detention order. That said offences may at the most fall within the domain of “law and order”, and not “Security of State”. That it is a settled legal position that for invoking preventive detention on the ground of "Security of the State", the activities of the detenu must be of such a grave and serious natu