The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of detention, observing that an unexplained delay of one month in passing the detention order vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and that mere involvement in the transportation of a bovine animal, without material showing impact on public order, could not justify preventive detention.
The case arose from the petition challenging the order issued by the district magistrate, Kathua, whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention to prevent continuing criminal activities and to maintain public peace and order. The petitioner canvassed that the material relied upon was not furnished, the grounds of detention were a replica of the police dossier and the same were not explained in a language understood by him, there was an unexplained delay in passing the detention order, and the alleged activities did not constitute a threat to public order. On the other hand, the respondent, through their counter affidavit, submitted that all the material has been provided to the detainee in Hindi/Urdu language, complying with all the statutory requirements. The detention record was also produced before the court.
Hearing the petition, the bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that the dossier recommending detention was submitted on May 5, 2025, whereas the impugned order of detention was passed on June 16, 2025, and no explanation was furnished for this delay. There has been no material in the record indicating correspondence during this period. Relying on the case of Javed Iqbal Itoo vs. UT of J&K & Ors. [WP(Crl) No. 153/2022], the Court held that such unexplained delay indicated absence of urgency and vitiated the detention order.
Further dealing with the second issue of involvement in transportation and thereby violating the public order, the court observed that the detaining authority had not recorded any satisfaction that such activities had affected or had the potential to affect the public order, while relying on the case of Bhupinder Kumar alias Pappu Krishan Lal vs. UT of J&K & Ors, [AIR Online 2025 J&K 499].
Accordingly, the court has allowed the petition and quashed the impugned detention order and directed the respondent to release the petitioner from preventive custody, provided he is not required in connection with any other case.
Appearance:
For Petitioner: Advocate Jagpaul Singh.
For Respondents: GA Suneel Malhotra.
