HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No.314/2025 Reserved on: 11.03.2026 Pronounced on:30.03.2026 Uploaded on: 01.04.2026 Happy Choudhary, Aged 27 years Son of Shri Darshan Lal, R/o Hakkal Tehsil & District Jammu Presently Lodged in District Jail, Bhaderwah, District Doda Through father Darshan Lal, Aged 59 years S/o Laju Ram R/o Bega Tehsil R.S.Pura, Jammu ...Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Nayyar, Advocate Versus 1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar 2. District Magistrate, Jammu 3. Superintendent, District Jail, Bhaderwah, District Doda. ...Respondent(s) Through:- Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER Sanjeev Kumar “J” 1. An order and judgment dated 13th November, 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in HCP LPA NO.314/2025 2 No.71/2025 titled Happy Chouhdary v. Union Territory of J&K and others, is subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed by the appellant under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 2. Vide judgment impugned, the Writ Court has turned down the challenge thrown by the appellant to his detention under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 [“the Act”], ordered by the District Magistrate, Jammu vide Order No.PSA 03 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025. The detention of the appellant ordered by the District Magistrate vide order dated 19.03.2025 was in terms of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. In execution of the order of detention, the appellant was taken into preventive custody on 20th March, 2025. The appellant has, thus, served the maximum period of detention for which he could have been detained under Section 8(1)(a) of the Act for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the order of detention, in terms of which the appellant was placed under preventive detention, has outlived its life, thereby rendering both the writ petition as well as this appeal infructuous. LPA NO.314/2025 3 5. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondents to release the appellant forthwith from preventive detention, if not already released, as he has already undergone the maximum period of detention. 6. Record be returned to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 30.03.2026 Vinod Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Vinod Kumar 2026.04.01 10:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document