Opening fire upon law enforcement agencies as part of an organized criminal gang transcends ordinary law and order breaches and constitutes a threat to public order, justifying preventive detention provided procedural safeguards are met.

JAMMU

Reserved on: 16.07.2026

Pronounced on: 23.07.2026

Uploaded on: 23.07.2025

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced: Full

HCP No. 140/2025

Arjun Kumar, through his father

Sham Lal.

...Petitioner(s)

Through: - Mr. Nikhil Choudhary, Advocate

Vs.

UT OF J&K & ORS ...Respondent(s)

Through: - Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG.

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order No. PSA 14 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025 (for short, "the detention order")

passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "the

detaining authority"), whereby the petitioner has been detained under

Section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, with a

view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order.

2. The detention order has been assailed primarily on the grounds that the

constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention have

not been complied with. It is contended that the grounds of detention were

neither furnished nor explained to the detenue in a language understood by

HCP No.140/2025 Page 1 of 8

him, thereby depriving him of his valuable constitutional right to make an

effective representation against the order of detention. It is further pleaded

that the material relied upon by the detaining authority, including copies of

the FIRs, seizure memos, FSL reports, site plans, bail orders and other

relevant documents, was not supplied to the detenue. According to the

petitioner, the grounds of detention are vague, stale and founded upon

irrelevant material, which vitiates the subjective satisfaction recorded by the

detaining authority. It is also urged that the petitioner was not informed of

his right to make a representation before the Advisory Board. It is further

contended that the dossier and the detention order bear the same date, i.e.,

12.09.2025, which, according to the petitioner, clearly reflects a mechanical

exercise of power and complete non-application of mind by the detaining

authority.

3. Respondent No. 2 has filed the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the

detention order has been passed after due application of mind and on the

basis of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority upon

consideration of the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of

Police, Jammu. It is further stated that the detenue is a habitual and notorious

criminal involved in serious offences, including attempt to murder, assault

and use of illegal firearms and sharp-edged weapons. It is pleaded that six

FIRs and six Daily Diary Reports (DDRs) have been registered against him

and that his criminal activities have created fear and insecurity amongst the

public, thereby adversely affecting public order. It is further stated that all

the constitutional and statutory safeguards were duly complied with, the

HCP No.140/2025 Page 2 of 8

grounds of detention along with the material relied upon, were supplied to

the detenue, and the contents thereof were explained to the petitioner in the

language understood by him.

4. Mr. Nikhil Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and submitted that the detenue

was deprived of his valuable constitutional right to make an effective

representation as neither t