HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No. 129/2024 Pronounced on:09.05.2025 Yudhbir Singh …. Petitioner(s) Through:- Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate V/s Union Territory of J&K and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 01. The challenge in this petition pertains to detention order No. PSA 10 of 2024 dated 14.03.2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu detaining the detenu-Yudhbir Singh alias Bablu, by the Detaining Authority on the ground that he is a hardened criminal and has constantly been involved in numerous criminal offences that are of serious and grave nature and with a view to prevent him from committing any act, the detenu was detained vide order dated 14.03.2024. 02. The impugned order of detention has been assailed by the detenu on the grounds that; (i) the order of detention has been passed without any application of mind on a mere apprehension of threat to the security of the State; (ii) the Detaining Authority has not arrived at any subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention; (iii) the detenu was not informed about his right to make a representation against the detention order which is in violation of his right guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution; (iv) the grounds of detention have not been read over and explained to the detenu in the language he understands; (v) the order of _____________ detention has been passed without any application of mind on irrelevant and vague grounds; (vi) all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has been provided to the detenu which is blur and illegible; (vii) the Detaining Authority has only relied upon the police dossier and without application of mind and without recording his personal satisfaction by repeating the grounds of detention in the impugned order, has acted mechanically while passing the order of detention. 03. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and produced the detention record. 04. Learned AAG submits that the detenu was a hard core criminal and has been involved in numerous activities of serious and heinous nature over a period of time and has spread a reign of terror among the peace loving people of the area and his anti social activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as such, he was detained under the preventive law. It is further submitted that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority cannot be subjected to judicial review by this Court. All the procedural safeguards and constitutional guarantees were duly complied with by the Detaining Authority. The grounds of detention, order of detention as well as entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has been provided to the detenu and he was also informed of his right to make a representation against the order of detention. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record also. 06. The Senior Superintendent of Police vide dossier dated 06.02.2024 has supported that the detenu is habitual offender and is involved in numerous criminal offences of serious nature. There are as many as 23 FIRs registered against him in different Police Stations. The detenu‟s activities are _____________ highly prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The District Magistrate, Jammu after considering all the material on record arrived at subjective satisfaction and detained the detenu. 07. The Detaining Authority, in the grounds of detention, has stated that the detenu is a hard-core criminal and has been involved in numerous activities of serious and heinous nature over a period of time and has spread a reign of terror among the peace loving people of the area and anti-social activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order which poses a serious threat to the peace of society. 08. The contention of the detenu „that there is no application of mind by the Detaining Authority‟ is without any merit as the Detaining Authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction after considering all the material on record that the criminal activities of the detenu were likely to disturb even temp of life. 09. The contention of the detenu „that all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority has not been provided to the detenu‟ is without any merit. Perusal of the detention record reveals that the execution report, which is placed on record, the Executing Officer-Nazarat Hussain, SI had executed the warrant, the detenu was provided the detention order (1 leaf), Notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (10 leaves), dossier of detention (12 leaves) and other related relevant documents (352 leaves). The contents whereof were read over and explained to the detenu in Hindi/Dogri language which he fully understood. This apart, he was also informed of his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority or to the Government against the order of detention. _____________ 10. It is well settled that, in case, the detenu has been detained under the preventive detention and the allegation as well as the material against the detenu relied upon by the Detaining Authority was sufficient to derive its subjective satisfaction that the detention of the detenu was imperative to prevent him from acting in any manner which would cause threat to the maintenance of public order. The receipt which is placed on record reveals that the detenu has been provided the grounds of detention, contents of the detention, dossier, copy of FIR and other material, the same has been acknowledged by the detenu. 11. Preventive detention has been held to be permissible under the Constitution for detaining a person in accordance with the law made on the subject. Preventive detention is made with the aim and object to keep the society from activities of a person which are likely to deprive the large number of people from their personal liberty. The object is to curtail and prevent the liberty of an individual who involves in such activities is in the larger public interest. 12. Personal liberty is one of the most precious rights guaranteed under the Constitution and no one can be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except by procedure established by law. Article 22(5), however, provides detention of person without formal charge, trial and without person being held guilty of an offence. The only objective is to prevent a person from creating mischief and to protect the society. 13. In Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order) and another vs. Nabila and another, reported as (2015) 12 SCC 127, it has been held that one act may not be sufficient to form the requisite satisfaction for detaining him. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under: _____________ “Indisputably, the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive, but only preventive. In case of preventive detention no offence is to be proved nor is any charge formulated. The justification of such detention is suspicion and reasonability and there is no criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence…” 14. Similarly, in “Haradhan Saha V. State of West Bengal”, reported as (1975) 3 SCC 198, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court has held that there is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Public Safety Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one, case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in the Act. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The, basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one, case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent.” 11. Similarly, in “Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order) and another vs. Nabila and another”, (2015) 12 SCC 127, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under:- “Indisputably, the object of law of preventive detention is not punitive, but only preventive. In case of preventive detention no offence is to be proved nor is any charge formulated. The justification of such detention is suspicion and reasonability and there is no criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. However, the detaining authority must keep in mind while passing the order of detention, the civil and _____________ constitutional right granted to every citizen by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as no person shall be deprived of life and liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The laws of Preventive Detention are to be strictly construed and the procedure provided must be meticulously followed”. 15. In “Union of India and another vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad reported as AIR 2019 SC 3428”, it has been held by Hon‟ble Apex Court that the Court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is „subjective‟ in nature and the Court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of Detaining Authority and interfere with the order of detention, though the same is subject to review on the procedural safeguards. 16. It was submitted that the detenu was detained on the basis of State incident which has no live and proximate link with the imperative detention. The grounds of the detention reveal that the detenu is involved in as many as 23 FIRs and the past conduct of the detenu is a threat to the public and he is repeatedly indulging in criminal and social activities which are disturbing the peace and tranquility of society. 17. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity and the detenu was informed with sufficient clarity what weighed with the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. The procedural safeguards are complied with. The Detaining Authority arrived at the satisfaction after considering all the material placed before it and none of the constitutional and statutory rights of the detenu have been violated. The act of detaining is related to activities which have been projecting a serious threat to the maintenance of public order. 18. The contention of the detenu regarding grounds of detention being replica or dossier is also without any merit. The Detaining Authority after _____________ application of mind has arrived at the subjective satisfaction to detain the detenu. 19. For the foregoing reasons, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order of detention. This petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 20. The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents by the Registry forthwith. (Sindhu Sharma) Judge Jammu : 09.05.2025 Ram Murti Whether approved for speaking : Yes/No Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No Ram Murti 2025.05.13 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document