SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of an alleged member of the “Khauf Gang” under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that his alleged involvement in indiscriminate firing at a police party and other serious criminal activities went beyond a mere law-and-order issue and posed a genuine threat to public order.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Arjun Kumar through his father Sham Lal, challenging District Magistrate Jammu’s detention order dated September 12, 2025. The court held that the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing preventive detention had been complied with and found no legal or procedural infirmity warranting interference.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Nikhil Choudhary argued that the detenue had been deprived of his constitutional right to make an effective representation because the grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the detaining authority had not been supplied to him. He also contended that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, amounted only to a breach of law and order and not public order. Choudhary further submitted that the detention order and the police dossier carrying the same date reflected a mechanical exercise of power and non-application of mind.
Deputy Advocate General PD Singh, appearing for the Union Territory, defended the detention, arguing that the detenue was a habitual offender involved in multiple serious offences, including attempted murder, assaults and use of illegal firearms. He submitted that the detention order was passed after due application of mind, all relevant documents had been supplied to the detenue, and the grounds of detention were explained to him in a language he understood.
According to the judgment, the petitioner challenged the detention primarily on the grounds that the constitutional safeguards under the PSA had been violated, alleging that the grounds of detention were neither furnished nor explained in a language understood by him, that copies of FIRs, seizure memos, forensic reports, bail orders and other relied-upon documents had not been supplied, and that he had not been informed of his right to make a representation before the Advisory Board.
Rejecting these arguments, the court found that the detention record contradicted the petitioner’s claims.
“The receipt forming part of the detention record clearly shows that the detenue received 155 leaves, including the detention warrant, notice of detention, grounds of detention, police dossier and all other relevant documents.”
The court also noted that the grounds of detention had been read over in English and explained in Hindi/Dogri, which the detenue fully understood, and that no material had been produced to rebut the official record.
On the argument that the detention order and the police dossier were issued on the same date, Justice Oswal observed:
“The mere fact that the dossier and the detention order share the same date cannot lead to an automatic presumption of arbitrariness. What is paramount is whether the detaining authority subjected the material to independent scrutiny before recording its subjective satisfaction.”
The court placed particular emphasis on FIR No. 17/2025, in which the petitioner was accused of opening indiscriminate fire on a police patrol near Tube Well, Alawal Chak, on January 31, 2025. According to the judgment, police retaliated in self-defence, one accused sustained a bullet injury, and both suspects were apprehended with illegal firearms and live cartridges. The court also noted that although the petitioner had been granted bail in the case, police had sought cancellation of the bail.
Holding that the allegations clearly affected public order, the court observed: “The act of opening fire upon law enforcement agencies is, in itself, sufficient to instill a sense of fear and insecurity in the citizenry, and inherently possesses the propensity to disturb public order. If these individuals are permitted to remain at large, total breakdown of public order would follow.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Arjun S/o Ratan Gaikwad vs State of Maharashtra (2024), the High Court reiterated that every breach of law and order does not amount to disturbance of public order, but acts creating terror among the public do fall within the scope of preventive detention.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Oswal concluded: “The impugned detention order does not suffer from any legal or procedural infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.”
