HCP No.149/2025 Page 1 of 12 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No.149/2025 CM No.6660/2025 Reserved on: 09.07.2026 Pronounced on:13.07.2026 Uploaded on: 13.07.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full Alex Mattoo S/O Kenny Mattoo R/O Teli Basti Bari Brahmana Tehsil Bari Brahmana District Samba A/p District Jail, Poonch Through mother Sapna Mattoo …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Pawan K. Kundal Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sahil Verma, Advocate. Vs. 1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. District Magistrate, Samba. 3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Samba. 4. Jail Superintendent District Jail, Poonch …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA CORAM: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. Vide detention Order No. 06/PSA of 2025 dated 16.09.2025 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Samba, the petitioner was ordered to be detained under preventive custody in terms of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) with a view HCP No.149/2025 Page 2 of 12 to prevent him from acting in any manner which is highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the quashment of the aforesaid order of detention, inter alia, on the grounds that the detenue was not furnished with the material and other relevant documents relied upon by the detaining authority, nor were the same read over and explained to him in a language understood by him, thereby depriving him of an effective opportunity to make a meaningful representation; that the detenue was not informed of his valuable right to submit a representation before the competent authority, resulting in a serious infringement of his constitutional and statutory safeguards; that the family members of the detenue was not informed about the detention of the petitioner; that the detaining authority has not recorded any compelling reasons or cogent material to justify the preventive detention despite the fact that the detenue was already in custody. 3. Pursuant to the notices issued by this Court, respondent No. 2–District Magistrate, Samba, has filed a detailed counter affidavit vehemently opposing the writ petition. It is contended that, having regard to the prejudicial activities of the detenue, the impugned order of preventive detention was passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; that HCP No.149/2025 Page 3 of 12 after perusal of the material records submitted by the SSP, Samba and after application of mind carefully, subjective satisfaction has been drawn by the detaining authority that the criminal activities of the detenue pose a threat to the maintenance of public order; that each and every norm has been followed while detaining the detneue under the Public Safety Act. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents and considered. 5. The detaining authority, before invoking the preventive detention, discussed various grounds for detention, incorporating that the detenue has been involved in a number of criminal activities, and as many as ten FIRs bearing FIR No. 50/2022, 18/2023, 46/2023, 64/2023, 70/2023, 36/2024, 75/2024, 88/2024, 169/025 and 106/2025 have been registered against the detenue; that the activities of the detenue are very harmful and highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and peace; that the detenue poses a serious threat to the maintenance of public order and the safety of law abiding citizens particularly due to his repeated indulgence in criminal activities. 6. Perusal of the grounds of detention would indicate that the detenue is an incorrigible offender who has consistently remained involved in unlawful and anti-social activities that HCP No.149/2025 Page 4 of 12 are gravely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is further asserted that upon careful examination of the material on record, the detaining authority is of the considered opinion that the activities of the detenue are gravely prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the said activities of the detenue persuaded the detaining authority in order to curb his activities to order detention of the detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act. 7. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue was neither furnished with the material and other relevant documents relied upon by the detaining authority nor were the contents thereof read over and explained to him in a language understood by him, thereby depriving him of an effective opportunity to make a meaningful representation against the order of detention. The said contention also is equally devoid of merit. A perusal of the detention record reveals that, at the time of execution of the impugned detention order, as many as 94 leaves comprising the grounds of detention and all the relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority were duly supplied to the detenue against proper receipt. The record further reflects that the contents of the detention order and the accompanying material were read over to the detenue in English and explained to him in Hindi/Dogri, the languages understood by him, and that he acknowledged the receipt HCP No.149/2025 Page 5 of 12 thereof by affixing his signatures. Thus, the said contention is wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit, and consequently deserves to be rejected. 8. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the detenue was not informed of his valuable right to submit a representation against the order of detention before the competent authority. The contention cannot be accepted. The Execution Report, which forms part of the detention record, clearly demonstrates that the detenue was duly informed of his right to make a representation to the Government against the impugned detention order, if he so desired. The official record, therefore, completely belies the petitioner's plea. Consequently, the contention is found to be wholly misconceived and devoid of any merit. 9. Third ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the family member of the detenue was not informed about the detention of the petitioner. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that vide communication No. DMS/JC/PSA/25-26/76-80 father of the detenue, namely, Kenny Matoo was informed regarding the detention of the deteue under the provisions of Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. In the said order, it has also been mentioned that grounds of detention would be furnished to detenue and that against the impugned detention order. HCP No.149/2025 Page 6 of 12 10. Fourth ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority has not recorded any compelling reasons or relied upon cogent material to justify the order of preventive detention despite the detenue already being in custody cannot be accepted. The record discloses that the detaining authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenue was in judicial custody at the time of passing the detention order. The grounds of detention reflect due consideration of the relevant material and record the satisfaction that there existed a real possibility of the detenue being released on bail and, upon such release, indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detaining authority has, therefore, recorded sufficient and compelling reasons warranting the order of preventive detention. Accordingly, the said contention is devoid of merit and stands rejected." 11. Right of personal liberty is a most precious right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty, except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down in the case “Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC 597)”, is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is HCP No.149/2025 Page 7 of 12 temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defense. 12. Framers of the Constitution, however, have, by incorporating Article 22(5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person being held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim and object are to save society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case it would be dangerous, for the people at large, to wait and watch as by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person, having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing general public to risk and causing colossal damage to life and property. It is, for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent a person bent upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 13. Referring to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘The State of Bombay v. HCP No.149/2025 Page 8 of 12 Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157‟ would be advantageous. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment lays law on the point, which is profitable to be reproduced hereunder: “5. It has to be borne in mind that the legislation in question is not an emergency legislation. The powers of preventive detention under this Act of 1950 are in addition to those contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, where preventive detention is followed by an inquiry or trial. By its very nature, preventive detention is aimed at preventing the commission of an offence or preventing the detained person from achieving a certain end. The authority making the order therefore cannot always be in possession of full detailed information when it passes the order and the information in its possession may fall far short of legal proof of any specific offence, although it may be indicative of a strong probability of the impending commission of a prejudicial act. Section a of the Preventive Detention Act therefore requires that the Central Government or the State Government must be satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (1) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or (2) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (3) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community ......... it is necessary So to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. According to the wording of section 3, therefore, before the Government can pass an order of preventive detention it must be satisfied with respect to the individual person that his activities are directed against one or other of the three objects mentioned in the section, and that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in such a manner. The HCP No.149/2025 Page 9 of 12 wording of the section thus clearly shows that it is the satisfaction of the Central Government or the State Government on the point which alone is necessary to be established. It is significant that while the objects intended to be defeated are mentioned, the different methods, acts or omissions by which that can be done are not mentioned, as it is not humanly possible to give such an exhaustive list. The satisfaction of the Government however must be based on some grounds. There can be no satisfaction if there are no grounds for the same. There may be a divergence of opinion as to whether certain grounds are sufficient to bring about the satisfaction required by the section. One person may think one way, another the other way. If, therefore, the grounds on which it is stated that the Central Government or the State Government was satisfied are such as a rational human being can consider connected in some manner with the objects which were to be prevented from being attained, the question of satisfaction except on the ground of mala fides cannot be challenged in a court. Whether in a particular case the grounds are sufficient or not, according to the opinion of any person or body other than the Central Government or the State Government, is ruled out by the wording of the section. It is not for the court to sit in the place of the Central Government or the State Government and try to deter- mine if it would have come to the same conclusion as the Central or the State Government. As has been generally observed, this is a matter for the subjective decision of the Government and that cannot be substituted by an objective test in a court of law. Such detention orders are passed on information and materials which may not be strictly admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act in a court, but which the law, taking into consideration the needs and exigencies of administration, has allowed to be considered sufficient for the subjective decision of the Government.” HCP No.149/2025 Page 10 of 12 14. In accordance with the legal position, afore-stated, settled by the Six-Judge Constitution Bench way back in the year 1951, the scope of looking into the manner in which the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the detaining authority, is limited. This Court, while examining the material, which is made basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, would not act as a court of appeal and find fault with the satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of the material before detaining authority another view was possible. 15. The courts do not even go into the questions as to whether the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false. The reason for the rule is that to decide this, evidence may have to be taken by the courts and that it is not the policy of the law of preventive detention. This matter lies within the competence of the advisory board. 16. Those who are responsible for national security or for maintenance of public order must be the sole judges of what the national security, public order or security of the State requires. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing. Justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction, which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Thus, any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship HCP No.149/2025 Page 11 of 12 upon individuals, as held by the Supreme Court in the case „Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1143‟, do not contribute in any way of the nature of punishment. 17. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, the Supreme Court held in the case “Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India & Ors., 2005 (8) SCC 276”, and reiterated in the judgment in a case titled “Union of India & Anr. v. Dimple Happy Dhakad (AIR 2019 SC 3428)” that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive, but a preventive action, acknowledged object of which being to prevent anti-social and subversive elements from endangering the welfare of the country or security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in anti-national activities or smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. Rulings on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing so. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal position, impugned detention order is upheld and the petition HCP No.149/2025 Page 12 of 12 is found devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along-with pending application(s). 19. Original record, as produced, be returned to learned counsel for respondents. (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU 13.07.2026 Naresh/Secy. Whether the order is reportable: Yes Whether the order is speaking: Yes Naresh Kumar 2026.07.13 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document