Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2151 (JK)

Mohd Ayaz v. Ut Of J&K

2026-03-12

Mohd Yousuf Wani

body2026
JUDGMENT : MOHD YOUSUF WANI, J. 1. Impugned in the instant petition, filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner through his brother is an order of detention bearing No. DMP/PSA/05 of 2025 dated: 11.06.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Detaining Authority’ for short), while invoking his powers under Section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and lodged in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. The petitioner-detenue has assailed the impugned detention order on the grounds, inter alia, that he is a citizen of India and a domicile of UT of Jammu and Kashmir, as such, within his rights to seek the enforcement of his constitutional as well as other legal/statutory rights; that he is of the age of 49 years and a permanent resident of Buni Khet (Dhooni Khet) District, Poonch, who has been falsely branded as a habitual bovine smuggler for managing his preventive detention; that the impugned detention order has not been passed on any proximate or compelling necessity but on generalized and unverified allegations; that the grounds of detention reflect his involvement in three case FIR’s out of which two cases have been disposed of and other one FIR No.0061/2025 dated 05.05.2025 u/s 233 BNS of P/S Surankote, is pending investigation; that the ld. Detaining Authority has mechanically acted on the police dossier without conducting any independent verification or otherwise applying its own mind in respect of the matter; that even if the allegations against him are supposed to be true for arguments sake, they still pertain to law and order violations and not to acts prejudicial to public order as alleged; that he was not furnished with the complete set of the detention record which has made him unable to make a timely representation against his detention order; that his detention is punitive in nature and camouflaged as preventive; that the impugned detention order is vitiated by procedural irregularities, absence of subjective satisfaction and colourable exercise of power by the Detaining Authority which make the same unconstitutional, illegal and liable to be set aside; that the grounds of detention are the verbatim of police dossier thereby indicating the non- application of mind by the learned Detaining Authority and that his illegal and unjustified detention tantamounts to the infringement of his Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The respondents through their counter affidavit filed by the learned Detaining Authority i.e. respondent No. 2 resisted the instant petition on the grounds that none of the legal, fundamental or statutory rights of the petitioner-detenue have been infringed and the petition is utterly misconceived, false and frivolous deserving its dismissal. That the concerned SSP forwarded a dossier of activities of the petitioner to the answering respondent i.e. the Detaining Authority, making out a case for his detention being a habitual bovine smuggler in the area. That his escalating involvement in bovine smuggling characterized by a blatant disregard for the law, has profoundly disrupted the peaceful equilibrium of the region. That the actions of the petitioner-detenu are deeply detrimental to the public order, have instilled fear and animosity among the local population, disrupting the harmonious rhythm of community life. That the subjective satisfaction drawn by the detaining authority before ordering the detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act cannot be questioned on the ground of insufficiency of the incriminating material against the detenu. That the observance of the procedural safeguards by the detaining authority leaves little scope for the detenu to assail the impugned order. That the subjective satisfaction drawn by the detaining authority before ordering the detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act cannot be questioned on the ground of insufficiency of the incriminating material against the detenu. That the observance of the procedural safeguards by the detaining authority leaves little scope for the detenu to assail the impugned order. That keeping in view the prejudicial activities of the detenu, preventive detention of the petitioner/detenu has been ordered so as to deter him from acting and/or indulging in prejudicial activities, as such writ petition merits dismissal. That the impugned order of detention does not suffer from any malice or legal infirmity, as such challenge thrown to it is totally misdirected and misconceived, hence on this score the writ petition merits dismissal. That the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has instead tried to mislead this Hon'ble Court by sheer misrepresentation of facts, on this score also, the writ petition merits dismissal in limine. That the writ petition raises pure disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction before this Hon'ble Court. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. That the deponent has observed all the constitutional and statuary safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, while directing the detention of the detenu, hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. That the liberty of the detenu is subservient to the welfare, safety and interest of society at large and the deponent has exercised the power in detaining him under PSA within the ambit of the law of the land by observing all the safeguards, as such, the writ petition merits dismissal. That the grounds of detention, were read over and explained to the detenu in the language the detenu understands. That despite the registration of three FIR(s) against the petitioner, he did not mend his behaviour and remained adamant in continuing the smuggling of bovine animals, leaving no alternative for the answering respondent but to invoke the provisions of the Public Safety Act in the larger public interest. That despite the registration of three FIR(s) against the petitioner, he did not mend his behaviour and remained adamant in continuing the smuggling of bovine animals, leaving no alternative for the answering respondent but to invoke the provisions of the Public Safety Act in the larger public interest. That the answering respondent was aware that the petitioner/detenue is already involved in substantive offences, but keeping in view his activities which were highly prejudicial to the social order, the detenue was booked under Public Safety Act, strictly as per the provisions of the same. That the petitioner is involved in case FIR No. 0061/2025 under Sections 233 BNS, of Police Station Surankote, which is under investigation when he stands already convicted in two earlier FIR Nos 0316/2022 and 0400/2022 both of P/S Surankote as himself admitted by the petitioner/detenu. That a copy of whole of the material relied upon by the answering respondent has been furnished to the petitioner-detenue and also read over and explained to him in the languages which he understood fully and in token of which his signature was obtained. That moreover the petitioner/detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the Government as well as the Detaining authority against his detention. That all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the answering respondent. That the detention order in question has been passed by the answering respondent upon proper application of mind on the basis of the record brought before him. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in the matter. 4. The learned counsel Ms. Damini Singh Chauhan, Advocate, while reiterating the stand already taken in the petition contended that the impugned detention order is the outcome of illegality and incorrectness for being devoid of application of mind and subjective satisfaction on the part of the ld. Detaining Authority. She contended that petitioner-detenue is alleged to be involved in case bearing FIR No. 0061/2025 registered at Police Station, Surankote. That the said case FIR is pending investigation before the concerned police station, and it is not the case of the investigation officer that the petitioner was found and arrested on spot transporting the bovine animals. Detaining Authority. She contended that petitioner-detenue is alleged to be involved in case bearing FIR No. 0061/2025 registered at Police Station, Surankote. That the said case FIR is pending investigation before the concerned police station, and it is not the case of the investigation officer that the petitioner was found and arrested on spot transporting the bovine animals. That admittedly in earlier case FIR Nos 0316/22 and 0400/22 of P/S Surankote, the petitioner/detenu at the trial of the same, voluntary made confession after plea bargaining to get the said cases disposed off against the payment of some amount of fine so as to save his time and prevent his mental agony. That the petitioner did not confess in the said cases on merits. That in the under investigation case, the petitioner is presumed to be innocent as per the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence of our country. It was further contended that so called Adverse report dated 27.04.2025 of P/S Surankote and Istigasa under section 126, 129, 17 of BNSS dated 27.04.2025 and 08.05.2025 respectively being without any verification cannot base a detention order. The learned counsel very vehemently contended that the ld. Detaining Authority has misused its power vested in it under the Act by ordering the preventive detention of the petitioner-detenue on the allegation of his illegal activities which may amount to infraction of General Law and Order and not disorder in the society. He contended that none of the allegations/involvements amount to breach of public order as defined under Section 8(3) of the Act. He further submitted that it is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments that there lies a marked distinction between the acts amounting to breach of law and order and the acts prejudicial to the social order. The learned counsel also contended that the copy of detention record in its entirety especially the grounds of detention, the Police Dossier and the documents regarding criminal cases were not furnished to petitioner/detenu which amounts to the violation of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 13 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite clear that the detention of the petitioner-detenue is apparently illegal, as not being justified under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite clear that the detention of the petitioner-detenue is apparently illegal, as not being justified under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. He contended that the impugned detention order is the outcome of non-application of mind on the part of ld. Detaining Authority. It was further contended that the learned detaining authority has wholly and solely relied upon the police dossier without making any independent inquiry or probe and the grounds of detention are the replica of police dosser. The leaned counsel for the petitioner in support of for arguments placed reliance on the authoritative judgments cited as, “Raziya Umar Bakshi vs. Union of India & Ors ( AIR 1980 SC 1751 ); Chaju Ram vs.The State of Jammu & Kashmir, AIR 1971 SC 263 ; HCP No. 4/2024 titled Hamid Mohd vs. UT of J&K and ors decided on 06.08.2024; HCP No. 72/2024 titled Muskan Ali vs. UT of J&K and ors decided on 29.08.24; Sai fud din vs. UT of J&K HCP No. 111/2024: State of Maharashtra vs. Santosh Snober Acharya 2000(7) SCC 463 ”. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought the quashment of the impugned detention Order. 5. Per contra, the ld. UT Counsel submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed as none of the constitutional or any other statutory rights of the petitioner have been infringed by the respondents. He submitted that the detention order impugned in the petition has been passed on the due application of mind by the ld. Detaining Authority who was satisfied on the basis of the record of the dossier and the field inputs gathered by him that the activities of the petitioner are likely to endanger the public order. He contended that despite earlier registration of criminal cases against the petitioner and his being convicted in two cases, he did not mend his character but continued to indulge in aforesaid activities especially smuggling of bovine animals. He further contended that the object of the detention under the Act is preventive rather than punitive and is aimed at to debar an individual beforehand from indulging in activities prejudicial to the public order. The ld. State Counsel further contended that the petitioner/detenue who is of the age of about 49 years is a known habitual bovine smuggler in the area. The ld. State Counsel further contended that the petitioner/detenue who is of the age of about 49 years is a known habitual bovine smuggler in the area. That his criminal behaviour is becoming more serious and the general public has been registering its strong resentment for the actions of the petitioner-detenu regarding bovine smuggling. The learned UT counsel further contended that the copies of the detention record in entirety were furnished to the petitioner/detenue who has acknowledged the receipt of the same at the time of his detention. That he was also informed of the grounds of detention in the language understood by him with further information that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Government. 6. I have perused the instant petition, the reply affidavit and have also gone through the detention record produced by the ld. UT Counsel. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid perusal and the consideration of the rival arguments advanced on both the sides in the light of law on the subject, this Court is of the opinion that a ground is made out for interfering with the impugned detention order as the same suffers from patent illegality, misuse of power and non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. The main issue for redressal in the instant case is :- I. Whether the allegations against the petitioner culminating into registration of three Case FIR’s(two of which stand already disposed of on the confession of the petitioner) have the tendency to be prejudicial to the social order and if the answer is in the negative, whether the impugned detention order suffers from non-application of mind? 8. Taking the issue for determination, the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is of the opinion that although the criminal acts of petitioner which have culminated into the registration of three case FIR’s one of them presently under investigation and the other two already disposed of, no doubt, amount to infraction of law and order by falling within the definition of relevant offences under IPC/BNS, PCA Act yet the same have not the implication of disturbing the ‘social order’. The last surviving case FIR is under investigation in the concerned police station. The said FIR No. 0061 of P/S Surankote Poonch pertains to the alleged occurrence of 05.05.2025. The last surviving case FIR is under investigation in the concerned police station. The said FIR No. 0061 of P/S Surankote Poonch pertains to the alleged occurrence of 05.05.2025. The allegations made therein, as mentioned hereinbefore, relate to an issue of law and order and not to public order. The allegations under the aforesaid case FIR, even if supposed to be true or proved for arguments sake, yet it cannot amount to activities prejudicial to social order. 9. It is apt to reproduce the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act which defines the social order for the purposes of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. “8. Detention of certain persons (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) [(a) omitted. (b) “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” means – (i) promoting, propagating or attempting to create, feelings of enmity or hatred or disharmony on ground of religion, race, caste, community, or region; (ii) making preparations for using, or attempting to use, or using, or instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise, abetting the use of force where such preparation, using, attempting, instigating, inciting, provoking or abetting, disturbs or is likely to disturb public order; (iii) attempting to commit, or committing, or instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting the commission of, mischief within the meaning of section 425 of the Ranbir Penal Code where the commission of such mischief disturbs, or is likely to disturb public order; (iv) attempting to commit, or committing, or instigating, inciting, provoking or otherwise abetting the commission of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment of a term extending to seven years or more, where the commission of such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb public order; [(c) “smuggling” in relation to timber or liquor means possessing or carrying of illicit timber or liquor and includes any act which will render the timber or liquor liable to confiscation under the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, Samvat, 1987 or under the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act, 1958, as the case may be;] [(d) “timber” means timber of Fir, Kail, Chir or Deodar tree whether in logs or cut up in pieces but does not include firewood;] [(e) “Liquor” includes all alcoholic beverages including beer]”. 10. The Hon‘ble Apex Court has in a catena of judgments noted the difference between, “law and order” and “public order”. 11. 10. The Hon‘ble Apex Court has in a catena of judgments noted the difference between, “law and order” and “public order”. 11. In Ram Manohar Lohia Vs. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 709 , it was held by the Hon‘ble Apex Court through Hon‘ble M. Hidayatullah. J. (as the Chief Justice then was) at para 54 as under: - “54. Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Suppose that the two fighters were of rival communities and one of them tried to raise communal passions. The problem is still one of law and order but it raises the apprehension of public disorder. Other examples can be imagined. The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Defence of India Act but disturbances which subvert the public order are.” 12. In Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal (1970) 1 SCC 98 again Hon‘ble M. Hidayatullah, (CJ) observed that it is not the every case of a general disturbance to public tranquility which can be termed as public disorder and the test to be applied in such cases is whether the alleged act leads to the disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order. That if the alleged act affects some individual or individuals leaving tranquility of the society undisturbed, the act cannot be termed as amounting to public disorder. In that case the petitioner/detenu was detained by an order of a district magistrate since he had been indulging in teasing, harassing and molesting young girls and assaults on individuals of a locality. That if the alleged act affects some individual or individuals leaving tranquility of the society undisturbed, the act cannot be termed as amounting to public disorder. In that case the petitioner/detenu was detained by an order of a district magistrate since he had been indulging in teasing, harassing and molesting young girls and assaults on individuals of a locality. While holding that the conduct of the petitioner/detenu could be reprehensible, it was further held that it (read: the offending act) does not add up to the situation where it may be said that the community at large was being disturbed or in other words there was a breach of public order or likelihood of a breach of public order. The observations made by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the said case at para 3 are reproduced as under:- “3. Public order was said to embrace more of the community than law and order. Public order is the even tempo of the life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from acts directed against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. It is the degree of disturbance and its affect upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order. … It is always a question of degree of the harm and its affect upon the community.…This question has to be faced in every case on facts. There is no formula by which one case can be distinguished from another.” 13. In Kuso Sah Vs. The State of Bihar (1974) 1 SCC 195, the Hon‘ble Apex Court through Hon‘ble Y.V. Chandrachud, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Bench held at paras 4 & 6 as under:- “4. The two concepts have well defined contours, it being well established that stray and unorganized crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. Infractions of law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder.” “6. Infractions of law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder.” “6. The power to detain a person without the safeguard of a court trial is too drastic to permit a lenient construction and therefore Courts must be astute to ensure that the detaining authority does not transgress the limitations subject to which alone the power can be exercised.” 14. In Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (1984) 3 SCC 14 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at para32 of the judgment through Hon’ble E.S.Venkataramiah, J. (as the Chief Justice then was) as under:- “32.It is well settled that the law of preventive detention is a hard law and therefore it should be strictly construed. Care should be taken that the liberty of a person is not jeopardized unless his case falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant law. The law of preventive detention should not be used merely to clip the wings of an Accused who is involved in a criminal prosecution. It is not intended for the purpose of keeping a man under detention when under ordinary criminal law it may not be possible to resist the issue of orders of bail, unless the material available is such as would satisfy the requirements of the legal provisions authorizing such detention. When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court.” 15. In A.K.Roy Vs. Union of India, (1982)1 SCC 271 it was held at para 70 of the judgment as under:- 70. *** We have the authority of the decisions in … for saying that the fundamental rights conferred by the different articles of Part III of the Constitution are not mutually exclusive and that therefore, a law of preventive detention which falls within Article 22 must also meet the requirements of Articles 14, 19 and 21.” 16 . This Court is also fortified in its opinion with the recent authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as Ameena Begum Vs. This Court is also fortified in its opinion with the recent authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telagana & Ors., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No. 8510 of 2023 decided on 04.09.2023 in which it has been held at para-40 of the judgment as under:- “40. On an overall consideration of the circumstances, it does appear to us that the existing legal framework for maintaining law and order is insufficient to address like offences under consideration, which the Commissioner anticipates could be repeated by the Detenu if not detained. We are also constrained to observe that preventive detention laws—an exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations—ought not to have been invoked in this case as a tool for enforcement of “law and order”. Thus, for the reason that, the Commissioner despite being aware of the earlier judgment and order of the High Court dated 16th August, 2021 passed the Detention Order ostensibly to maintain “public order” without once more appreciating the difference between maintenance of “law and order” and maintenance of “public order”. The order of detention is, thus, indefensible.” 17. In the above referred case, the allegation against the detenu was that he was “ habitually committing the offences including outraging the modesty of women, cheating, extortion, obstructing the public servants from discharging their legitimate duties, robbery and criminal intimidation along with his associates in an organized manner in the limits of … and he is a “Goonda” as defined in clause (g) of Section 2” of the relevant Statute invoked by the Commissioner. The Commissioner, with a view to prevent the Detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, recorded not only his satisfaction for invoking the provisions of the Act but also recorded a satisfaction that “the ordinary law under which he was booked is not sufficient to deal with the illegal activities of such an offender who has no regard for the society. Hence, unless he is detained under the detention laws, his unlawful activities cannot be curbed”. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the landmark judgment cited as Sushanta Goswami, In Re ([1968} Supreme Court of India) addressed the critical issue of preventive detention under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Hence, unless he is detained under the detention laws, his unlawful activities cannot be curbed”. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the landmark judgment cited as Sushanta Goswami, In Re ([1968} Supreme Court of India) addressed the critical issue of preventive detention under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The said case involved a collective petition by Sushanta Goswami and 46 others challenging their detention under Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Detention Act, 1950. The central question revolved around was whether the grounds for detention genuinely pertained to maintaining public order or were merely related to general law and order? The Hon’ble Supreme Court meticulously examined each petitioner’s grounds for detention, categorizing them based on their relevance to “public order.” The Court invalidated detention orders where the activities alleged did not directly threaten public order but were instead typical criminal offences such as theft, assault and property damage. Conversely, detention was upheld only where the activities posed a significant threat to the community’s overall peace and satiability. A pivotal aspect of the judgment was the Court’s insistence that detention under the guise of preventing actions prejudicial to public order must be substantiated by concrete evidence showing a direct impact on societal harmony. The Court emphasized the necessity of a clear and direct correlation between the detainee’s actions and the maintenance of public order. The Court referenced two significant cases to support its stance: Dwarka Das Bhatia Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1956 SCR 945) : This case underscored the importance of relevance in grounds for preventive detention, rejecting arbitrary detentions based on vague or unrelated reasons. Pursher Mukerjee vs . State of Wet Bengal. A mere recent decision at the time, this case further clarified the Judiciary’s view on maintaining the balance between state society and individual liberties, reinforcing stringent checks on detention order. The Court’s legal reasoning hinged on interpreting “public order” with precision. It delineated between general disturbances of law and order and actions that genuinely threaten societal piece. The judgment clarified that not every act disrupting law and order qualifies as being “prejudicial to public order.” For instance, petty thefts or assaults without broader societal implications do not meet the threshold for preventive detention under the Act. Furthermore, the court critiqued the authorities" tendency to conflate individual criminal acts with threats to public order, thereby undermining the very essence of preventive detention. Furthermore, the court critiqued the authorities" tendency to conflate individual criminal acts with threats to public order, thereby undermining the very essence of preventive detention. By setting aside detention orders lacking direct relevance, the court reinforced the principle that such extreme measures must be reserved for genuine threats to societal harmony.” 19. So it is reiterated that the material brought before the learned detaining authority by the District Superintendent of Police, Poonch was not of such a nature which could have been understood and apprehended as prejudicial to the “public order”. The alleged actions of the petitioner no doubt amount to infraction of laws for which the legal mechanism was all sufficient to deal with. The invocation of the provisions of the Act to detain the petitioner rather than to deal with him under the general criminal law appears to be an unjustified exercise tent amounting to violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the non-application of the mind is discernible in the matter. 20. It is a settled legal position that a detention order suffering from non-application of mind of the detaining authority cannot be sustained under law. 21 . The learned detaining authority appears to have followed the police dossier without application of mind. This Court in cases titled “Naba Lone vs. District Magistrate, 1988 SLJ 300” and “Mohd. Farooq thr ough Mohd. Yousuf vs. UT of J&K and others, WP (Crl) No. 17/2023” , decided on 03.09.2024 has laid down the law to the effect, “the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu is a copy of dossier, which was placed before the District Magistrate for his subjective satisfaction in order to detain the detenu. This shows total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority as he has dittoed the Police directions without applying his mind to the facts of the case.” The preventive detentions need to be passed with great care and caution keeping in mind that a citizens most valuable and inherent human right is being curtailed. The arrests in general and the preventive detentions in particular are an exception to the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The arrests in general and the preventive detentions in particular are an exception to the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The preventive detentions are made on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in relation to an apprehended conduct of the detenu by considering his past activities without being backed by an immediate complaint as in the case of the registration of the FIR and, as such, is a valuable trust in the hands of the trustees. The provisions of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of our Constitution are not applicable in the case of preventive detentions. So, the provisions of Clause (5) of the Article 22 of our Constitution, with just exception as mentioned in Clause (6), together with the relevant provisions of the Section 8 of PSA requiring for application of mind, subjective satisfaction, inevitability of the detention order, proper and prompt communication of the grounds of detention and the information of liberty to make a representation against the detention order, are the imperative and inevitable conditions rather mandatory requirements for passing of a detention order. 22. The allegations against the petitioner-detenu as per the pending investigation case arising out of the case FIR No. 0061 of 2025 of Police Station Surankote is the commission of the acts punishable under the sections 223 BNS. There is no allegation against the petitioner-detenu regarding the commission of any act creating or attempting to create any feeling of enmity, hatred or disharmony on the ground of religion, caste and community. 23 . Since the alleged activities of the petitioner/detenue, present a law and order situation to be dealt with under the normal law, passing of the impugned detention order on the pretext of, “ public disorder” was not justified. 24 . On the basis of the afore referred authoritative Judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind before passing the impugned detention order. 25 . It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to address to itself as to how the normal criminal law is inadequate to tackle the petitioner who is involved in the criminal case and stands bailed out. 25 . It was incumbent upon the Detaining Authority to address to itself as to how the normal criminal law is inadequate to tackle the petitioner who is involved in the criminal case and stands bailed out. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner/detenue had violated the bail conditions nor is it their stand that they assailed the bail orders but did not succeed and, therefore, they bonafidely invoked the provisions of the Act to detain the petitioner with the view to prevent him from repeating his alleged illegal activities of smuggling bovine animals. 26 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Anr” reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 has laid emphasis on the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of a citizen of India guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution and has, accordingly, stressed for taking great care and caution while passing any preventive detention orders so that same are passed in case of genuine and inevitable need only without any misuse or abuse of the powers. 27 . It is the case of the petitioner/detenu that his representation dated 17.06.2025 was turned a deaf ear by the respondents. It has been pleaded by the petitioner/detenu at para 4 ( C)- Grounds of challenge, of his petition that he has been falsely and frivolously accused of transporting bovine animals without any permission. That in reality, he is an agriculturist/cultivator by profession who legitimately deals with farm animals as a means of livelihood and possesses a valid and lawful permit for the seasonal movement of animals for pasture within the District of Poonch which was effective until 30.11.2025. A copy of the said permit issued by the Tehsildar concerned with date of renewal upto 30.11.2025 has been placed on the record of the petitioner as Annexure-X 28 . The preventive detentions need to be passed with great care and caution keeping in mind that a citizen’s most valuable and inherent human right is being curtailed. The arrests in general and the preventive detentions in particular are an exception to the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The preventive detentions need to be passed with great care and caution keeping in mind that a citizen’s most valuable and inherent human right is being curtailed. The arrests in general and the preventive detentions in particular are an exception to the most cherished fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The preventive detentions are made on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in relation to an apprehended conduct of the detenue by considering his past activities without being backed by an immediate complaint as in the case of the registration of the FIR and, as such, is a valuable trust in the hands of the trustees. The provisions of Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 of our Constitution are not applicable in the case of preventive detentions. So, the provisions of Clause (5) of the Article 22 of our Constitution, with just exception as mentioned in Clause (6), requiring for application of mind, subjective satisfaction, inevitability of the detention order, proper and prompt communication of the grounds of detention and the information of liberty to make a representation against the detention order, are the imperative and detention order. 29 . There is no whisper in the impugned detention order or in the grounds of detention regarding any independent probe by the learned detaining Authority, which appears to have acted upon the police dossier. 30 . It is apparent from the perusal of the detention record that admittedly as contended by the petitioner/detenu in his petition, his representation dated 17.06.2025 has been turned a deaf ear. The order dated 24.06.2025 of the learned Advisory Board passed on the reference of the Govt-Home Department reveals that no representation appears to have been filed by the petitioner as no such document is placed on the records, when the detention record to the contrary has a communication dated 24.06.2025 of the Govt Home Department addressed to the Advisory Board regarding forwarding of the representation of the petitioner for consideration. 31 . For the foregoing discussion, the impugned order appears to be the outcome of the non-application of mind and misuse of powers. 32. The petitioner/detenue has already suffered a detention of about Nine (9) months pursuant to the impugned detention order. 33. 31 . For the foregoing discussion, the impugned order appears to be the outcome of the non-application of mind and misuse of powers. 32. The petitioner/detenue has already suffered a detention of about Nine (9) months pursuant to the impugned detention order. 33. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order bearing No. DMP/PSA/05 of 2025 dated: 11.06.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Poonch, is quashed with the direction to the respondents to release the petitioner/detenue namely Mohd Ayaz s/o Mohd Shafi r/o Bhounikhet, (Dhooni Khet) PO Sialan, District Poonch J&K 185121, forthwith from his preventive detention in the instant case. 34. The detention record is ordered to be returned back to the Office of the learned Dy AG, Jammu against proper receipt. 35. Disposed of.