HCP No. 155/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No. 155/2024 Date of pronouncement : 09.04.2026 Uploaded on : 15.04.2026 Gourav Gupta Alias Gourav Jandial ….Petitioners Through:- Mr. Ankit Dogra, Advocate vice Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate V/s UT of J&K & Ors. …..Respondents Through:- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA \ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL) - 1. Heard Mr. Ankit Dogra, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. Perused the writ pleadings and the documents attached therewith from both sides. 3. The petitioner rushed to this Court with institution of present writ petition taking place on 20.12.2024 upon getting confronted by the fact that the preventive detention order No. 16/PSA of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Samba under Serial No. 06 Regular List HCP No. 155/2024 Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 was meant to detain him for the purpose of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and upon his arrest to be kept detained in district Kathua. 4. Thus, at the time of institution of the writ petition, the petitioner was yet to be taken into custody and, therefore, the writ petition was filed at the pre-execution stage of the detention warrant. 5. This Court came to grant indulgence by virtue of an order dated 23.12.2024 by staying the operation of preventive detention order No. 16/PSA of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 and ever since then said detention order has remained frozen in terms of its effect and the writ petition is coming for its adjudication. 6. The case for preventive detention of the petitioner was put up by the District Police, Samba before the respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Samba thereby reporting that the petitioner’s personal liberty was enabling him to indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and, as such, requires issuance of detention order under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. 7. The respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Samba, purportedly acting upon said inputs of the District Police, Samba, felt persuaded to exercise powers conferred under section 8 (1) (a) (i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety HCP No. 155/2024 Act, 1978 and thus, issued detention order No. 16/PSA of 2024. 8. Without execution of the detention order, the Government came to lend its approval by virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1022 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024. 9. Despite issuance of the detention warrant, the petitioner was not found by the Police as well as the District Magistrate, Samba to suffer arrest and detention whereas the petitioner approached this Court with institution of the present writ petition under his own signature to assail that the exercise of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 against him at the instance of the District Police, Samba by the respondent No.2 District Magistrate, Samba was malice in law being sheer abuse of process of law for the reason being that in order to subvert the ordinary criminal procedure of law operating against the petitioner for his alleged involvement in FIR No. 0052/2024, the petitioner was meant to be subjected to punitive punishment through the mode of preventive detention. 10. The petitioner refers to the fact that he came to earn bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba by virtue of order dated 20.11.2024 meaning thereby at the time of passing of the detention order, the petitioner was very much in submission to and before the ordinary course and court of law to the extent of seeking bail subject to the terms and conditions set out in bail order and that clearly meant that the petitioner was all along available to the HCP No. 155/2024 Police but despite that issuance of the detention order was more to make the petitioner on run. 11. FIR No. 0052/2024 was registered against the petitioner on 13.04.2024 whereas the detention order from the end of the respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Samba came to be passed on 07.05.2025. 12. It cannot be expected that the District Police, Samba as well as the District Magistrate of Samba were in total ignorance of the fact that the petitioner stood implicated in FIR No. 0052/2024 who even had surrendered himself before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba in the matter of applying for grant of bail with an application instituted on 13.11.2024 and came to be granted bail vide order dated 20.11.2024 by furnishing of a personal as well as surety bond but still till the filing of this writ petition by the petitioner before this Court taking place on 20.12.2024, the custody of the petitioner was never solicited by the District Police, Samba from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba in connection with the chasing detention order. 13. It seems that even the Public Prosecutor representing UT of J&K through Police Station, Vijaypur was not aware of passing of a detention order against the petitioner otherwise the fact would not have find a miss in mention in the order dated 20.11.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba. HCP No. 155/2024 14. The registration of FIR No.52/2024 by the Police Station, Vijaypur against the petitioner and another co- accused may be for a very serious alleged commission of offences but still that would not have given liberty to the District Police, Samba to act in slumber while coming to the matter of seeking preventive detention of the petitioner without itself not knowing the very whereabouts of the petitioner, who otherwise was appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba, seeking bail and getting it by furnishing bail bond as well as surety bond. 15. 15. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the exercise of preventive detention jurisdiction at the end of respondents No. 1 to 3 against the petitioner was illegal per se and, accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by quashing the detention order No. 16/PSA of 2024 dated 07.05.2024 read with approval order No. Home/PB- V/1022 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024. 16. Disposed of.’ (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 09.04.2026 Sneha Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No