Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3244 (JK)

PARAMJEET KUMAR THROUGH HIS BROTHER PARVEEN KUMAR v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS

LPA/106/2024 · 2025-03-07

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, Sanjeev Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No. 106/2024 in HCP No. 60/2023 Paramjeet Kumar @ Jungi, Aged 32 years, S/o Devi Dass, R/o R S Pura, Jammu, through his brother Praveen Kumar, Aged 30 years, S/o Devi Dass, R/o Draptey, Tehsil R S Pura, District Jammu. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- None v/s 1. UT of J & K through District Magistrate, Jammu. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu. 3. In-charge Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. .....Respondent(s) Through :- None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 07.03.2025 1. This intra court appeal by the appellant is directed against an order and judgment dated 03.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge [“Writ Court”] in HCP No. 60/2023 whereby, the petition filed by the appellant challenging detention Order No. 09 of 2023 dated 28.06.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu, has been dismissed. 2. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Probably the counsel for the appellant has chosen not to appear for the reason that this appeal, by the efflux of time, has been rendered infructuous. 3. In the instant case, the appellant was put under preventive detention by the District Magistrate, Jammu vide order dated 28.06.2023, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order, as it emerges from the record, Sr. No. 07 2 LPA No. 106/2024 in HCP No. 60/2023 was executed on 28.06.2023, as is evident from Annexure-III appended with this appeal. 4. The petition challenging detention was filed on 19.09.2023. Since, the detention under Public Safety Act for preventing detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order could be for a maximum period of one year, therefore, the order of detention which was impugned in the writ petition, has outlived its life. 5. The appeal for the aforesaid reasons is rendered infructuous and the same is accordingly disposed of, by providing that, if the appellant is still in preventive custody, he be released from such custody, forthwith. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 07.03.2025 Manan