Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ghulam Qadar vs U.T Of J&K Through Commissioner / ... on 27 September, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 59/2025
CM No. 2445/2025
Reserved on: 04.09.2025
Pronounced on: 27.09.2025
Ghulam Qadar
S/o Sh. Mazam Din
R/o Jig Gangshad, Tehsil Chenani, District Udhampur
At present lodged in Central Jail KotBhalwal
Through his brother Mohd Sadiq
S/o: Sh. Mazan Din
R/o Jig Ganshad, Tehsil Chenani, District Udhampur
.......Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Pawan Kr. Khajuria, Advocate
Versus
1. U.T of J&K through commissioner / Secretary, Home
Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu / Srinagar
2. District Magistrate, Udhampur.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Udhampur .
4. Superintendent Central Jail, KotBhalwal,
Jammu. ......Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
1. Through the medium of this writ petition, Order No. 15-PSA-2024 dated 26.12.2024 (impugned detention order) passed by the respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Udhampur (for short "detaining authority") under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978,the detenu, namely, Ghulam Qadar has been detained on the ground that he is a habitual bovine smuggler and has been repeatedly engaged in activities that have the potential to disrupt public 2 order and exacerbate communal tension and in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order, is sought to be quashed and the detenu set at liberty on the grounds made mention of therein.
2. The order of detention has been passed on the grounds prepared by the District Magistrate, Udhampur on the basis of dossier produced before him by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur.
3. As per the Dossier, detenu is shown to have been accused in connection with case FIR No. 99/2023 under Section 188 IPC 11 PCA Act of Police Station, Chenani which was disposed of before the JMIC, Chenani and he has been imposed fine of ₹5000/-.
In FIR No. 103/2023 under Section 188 IPC 11 PCA Act of Police Station, Chenani he has been convicted by the Court of learned JMIC, Chenani and he has been imposed a fine of ₹5000/-.
In FIR No.136/2023 under Section 188 IPC 11 PCA Act of Police Station, Chenani, he has been convicted by the Court of learned JMIC, Chenani and he has been imposed a fine of ₹5200/- and in DD Report dated 20.11.2024 and 26.11.2024 it has been mentioned that the petitioner is still active and continuing his criminal activities more particularlybovine smuggling in the jurisdiction of Police Station Chenani. These are the allegations and cases registered against the detenu, which stood decided way back in the year 2023 which have been made the basis for the detention of the petitioner.
4. The District Magistrate, Udhampur on the basis of the aforesaid cases has passed the order of detention. It is being mentioned in the grounds of detention that:
3
"Whereas, the First Information Reports (FIRS) and convictions of the subject, paint a clear picture of a person with a history of involvement in bovine smuggling within Udhampur. This history raises serious concerns about the potential consequences of allowing the subject unrestricted movement within society and to mitigate this threat and to restore peace to the region, it is imperative to apprehend the subject and dismantle the criminal network he has established. This decisive action will not only deter future criminal activities but also reassure the community that their safety and security are paramount.
Whereas, subject, a known bovine smuggler, has repeatedly engaged in activities that have the potential to disrupt public order and exacerbate communal tensions in the region. His illegal trade in livestock, particularly cattle, has potential to incite religious hatred and provoke retaliatory violence, thereby jeopardizing fragile communal harmony in the area. The Subject's history of bovine smuggling has not only made him a significant player in the illegal tradebut has also made him a catalyst for social unrest. By illegally transporting cattle, a highly sensitive issue for certain communities, the subject has deliberately, exploited religious sentiments to fuel animosity and discord.
Whereas, bovine smuggling, beyond its criminal nature, deeply impacts social harmony by fostering resentment and indignation within specific communities. The illegal trade of cattle is often perceived by certain religious groups as solely intended for slaughter, a practice that profoundly offends their deeply held beliefs. This perception stems fro the sacred status accorded tobovine animals within these communities. The continuous occurrence of suchsmuggling activities, therefore, fuels a sense of religious persecution and deepensexisting societal divisions, creating an environment of distrust and animosity.
Whereas the subject has been time and again warned to shun the pathillegal bovine smuggling and other criminal acts by which the sentiments of,particular community may get hurt or public order may get disturbed, however, subject did not mend his ways and continued to do so, and as many as 3 FIRs for bovine smuggling have been registered against him. The activities of subjectare anti-social which can hurt the sentiments of particular community at large andcreate the feeling of enmity, hatred and disharmony on the ground of religionthereby likely to disturb the public order in the area.
Now, therefore, in view ofthe aforementioned activities and circumstancesand the material produced before me, I have reached to the conclusion that toprevent flaming up of feeling of communal animosity and for maintenance ofpublic order, it is imperative to take decisive action of detaining the subject underSection 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir of public safety Act, 1978."
5. While passing the impugned detention order, the District Magistrate, Udhmapur has observed as under:-
"Whereas, Senior Superintendent of Police Udhampur vide letter no. Conf./Dossier/1016-19 dated 13.12.2024 has submitted dossier and other connected documents in respect of Ghulam Qadar S/o MazinDln R/o Jig Ganshad, Tehsil Chenani District Udhampur for his detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act' 1978; and Whereas, after perusal of material records submitted by Sr. Superintendent of Police Udhampur and after applying my mind carefully 4 and having regard to the requirements of law, I am satisfied that Ghulam Qadar S/o Mazin Din R/o Jig Ganshad Tehsil Chenani District Udhampur is a habitual bovine smuggler and hasrepeatedly engaged in activities that have the potential to disrupt public order andexacerbate communal tension and in order to prevent him from acting in any mannerprejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order, it is necessary to detain the said person under the Provisions of Public Safety Ad,.1978.
Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under section 8 of theJammu and Kashmir public safety Act,1978. I Saloni Rai, IAS, District Magistrate,Udhampur hereby direct that Ghulam Qadir s/o Mazin Din R/o Jig Ganshad Tehsil Chenani District Udhampur for his detention under the Jammu and Kashmir PublicSafety Act, 1978be detained and lodged in Central Jail Jammu, Kotbhawal."
6. The impugned detention order has been challenged by the petitioner through the medium of instant petition, precisely on the following grounds:-
(i) That the order of detention of the petitioner is totally illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law and facts of thecase and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed;
(ii) That the allegations levelled in the detention order on thegrounds same is made are illegal as no new activity of thepetitioner was observed by the police, as such, the detention is without any material or record, non-supply of documents,staleness of grounds, non-existent of any compellingnecessity of detention and is without application of mind by the detaining authority;
(iii) That the applicant is detained by way of preventive detention. lf the object was to immobilize, the petitioner under Section188 lPC, Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Actand to stop the social menace, the imprisonment afterconviction in the cases pending trial in the Courts would haveserved the real social objective;
(iv) That the detention of the petitioner is based on several legalinfirmities, the principle of being staleness of grounds, absence of compelling necessity and non-application ofmind vitiating the subjective satisfaction. lt creates a doubt inregard to the incident on basis of which present detention ismade and there is no date or time of the incident stated in the grounds of detention;
(v) That the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has notbeen considered in the detention order which requires thatmaterial regarding compelling necessity should be stated inthe grounds of detentions themselves. The DetainingAuthority has clearly failed to explain the compelling necessity when it has assumed(in the grounds of detention);
(vi) That there is total absence of compelling necessity in theorder that made the respondent no. 2 to issue detentionorder of the petitioner, as such, the detention order is illegaland cannot sustain in the eyes of law, more So it is not supported by any incident/report/evidence etc. so isrequired to be quashed as the same is curtailing the right toliberty of the Petitioner;5
(vii) That the respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 have neithercommunicated to the petitioner that he can make arepresentation before the detaining authority and therespondents are under the legal obligation to mention thisfact to the petitioner so that he can make a representation tothe detaining authority and by not giving such opportunitywould constitute an infraction of the valuable constitutionalright guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution ofIndia and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1987;
(viii) That it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no.2,3 and 4 were under the legal obligation to communicate thedetention order, to the petitioner in the language, which thepetitioner understood. The photocopy of the detention order which was supplied to the petitioner is in English languageand English language is not understandable to the petitionerbecause the petitioner is not an educated man and the petitioner only understand gojri/Dogri language;
(ix) That the order of detention has been passed by therespondents on imaginary grounds and in colorable exercise of power and the respondent no. 2 has not applied his mindproperly because grounds of detention also do not indicateany such activity of the petitioner which fall within theparameters of Section 8 of the Public Safety Act, 1987 andby imposing such provision make the order of detentionbecome illegal and the same deserves to be set aside;
(x) That the grounds of detention which was provided by therespondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 2 in the shape of theimpugned order and the grounds of detention are not trueand complete facts and the respondent no. 3 hadintentionally and deliberately concealed the material factsjust in order to falsely implicate the petitioner by imposing theprovisions of Public Safety Act, 1987, to detain the petitioner illegally;
(xi) That the detention order passed by the respondents on the basis of FlRs which has been falsely registered against thepetitioner is false and frivolous, as such, same is liable to be quashed;
(xii) That it is obligatory on the part of the detaining authoritiesand advisory board to supply all the relevant documents i.e.dossier, grounds of detention and other related documents tothe petitioner and non-providing the same renders the orderof detention illegal and bad in law;
(xiii) That District Magistrate, Udhampur i.e. respondent no. 2has signed the detention order of the petitioner on mereapprehension which action of the respondent no' 2 is totallybaseless and the reason for ordering the detention of thepetitioner is a gospel truth only to clip the freedom of citizen without any application of mind. The respondent no. 2 hasfailed to mention details of any material put before him for his satisfaction;
(xiv) That detaining authority has failed to appreciate thedelicacy of law, value of human liberty as such this legalinfirmity is fatal in nature, which makes the order bad in theeyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed;
(xv) That order of detention impugned in this writ petitionsuffers from fatal legal infirmities which are mandatory innature and violation of such provisions 6 make the order ofdetention illegal and bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside;
(xvi) That petitioner has also send representation to therespondents through registered post,same has not beendecided by the respondents and have also have not informed,the respondent about any decision taken ontherepresentation of the petitioner same is violation of his fundamental rights;
7. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Udhampur, has been filed, stating therein that - Senior Superintendent of Police Udhampur vide letter dated 13.12.2024 reported that detenu has become a hardened criminal involved in numerous offenses, primarily bovine smuggler. His activities were significantly disrupting public order, instilled fear among local citizens, and fostered a climate of insecurity. It is stated that the petitioner's actions, particularly the illegal trafficking of cattle, have deeply angered specific segments of the population, leading to a heightened apprehension of potential public order disturbances within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Chenani and surrounding areas. It is stated that due care and proper consideration have been applied while passing the detention order as the petitioner was time and again warned to shun the path of illegal bovine smuggling. It is further stated that copy of the detention order alongwith notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier of detention and other documents on the basis of which the petitioner has been detained were forwarded to SSP Udhampur for execution with a direction to serve its copy to the petitioner and also read over and explain the order and grounds of detention in the language he understands.
8. The further stand taken by the respondents is that all the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act has been compiled in letter and spirit by the respondents and the petitioner has been detained only after following the due 7 procedure. It is stated that petitioner was also made aware about the making of a representation against the order of detention. It is further stated that petitioner had made a representation through his father before the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Home Department, J&K, to set aside the detention order passed by respondent No. 2 and the same has been duly considered and rejected being without any merit. Further that petitioner has been detained as a precautionary measure based on reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of the petitioner.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the detention record produced by the respondents.
10. It would be clear from the grounds of detention that the these grounds are based on the dossier prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur and respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Udhampur while framing the grounds of detention has recorded his satisfaction that for preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order, detention of the petitioner was found to be necessary and accordingly impugned detention order was passed. The Dossier and grounds of detention would make it clear that the said dossier on the basis of which grounds of detention has been passed and the detenu detained refers to three FIRs with allegations of Bovine smuggler and the same FIRs have been decided with imposition of fine upon the detenu.
11. The details of FIRs with allegations as contained in the grounds of detention reads as under:-
"Case FIR NO. 99/2023 U/S 188 IPC 1l PCAAct of P/S Chenani:-
Brief fact of the case are that on 16.06.2023 at about 16:30 hrs, Naka Incharge ASI Moti Singh No.Exj-905573 informed in this Police Station throughtelephonically that he along with SPO Varinder Kumar 700/ SPO, SPO Sumeer Ahrned No. l3l SPO and SPO Joginder Kumar No.871/SPO were performingNaka checking duty at Naka point Motor shed Chenani. During 8 checking at about l6:15hrs. Police Party of Naka motor shed Chenani signaled one vehicle TataMobile bearing Regd. No.JKl4J-3924 driven by unknown driver for checkingpurpose which was on way from Udharnpur towards Kashmir. The unknowndriver of the vehicle stop the vehicle 50 feet away from the Naka point and fled away from the spot and leaving behind the above said vehicle. During checkingof the said vehicle 08 no's of bovine animals found loaded in the said vehicle in acruel manner, tied with ropes and without any arrangement of fodder, Whichclearly depicts that the said unknown driver transporting bovine animals withoutany valid permission of the DM Udhampur and violatedtheorder./instructions imposed by the District Magistrate Udhampur and transported the bovine animalsillegally for smuggling/ slaughteringpurpose towards Kashmir. On thisinformation a case FIRNo.99l2023 U/ S 188/1PC ll PCA Act stands registeredand investigation entrusted to ASI Firdous Ahmed EXJ-895511. During investigation the involvement of the person subject herein has been establishedand the challan of the case has been produced in the court of law vide challan no.77 /2023 on 09.08.2023. The case of the subject was disposed of before the Hon'ble JMIC, Chenani and accused was fined with Rs 5000/-."
"Case FIR NO. 10312023 U/S 188 IPC 11 PCAAct of P/S Chenani. Brief fact of the case are that on 21.06.2023 at about 0500hrs. Police party of PP Sudhmahadev while on Patrolling checking at Sarar. During checking at Sarar signaled one vehicle Tata Yodha bearing Regd.No.JKI4J-3924. The driver of thesaid vehicle parked his vehicle on road site and fled away from the spot. Duringchecking of the said vehicle 09 no's of bovine animals found loaded in the saidvehicle in a cruel manner, tied with ropes and without any arrangement of fodder.on this information a case FIR No. 103/2023 U/S I88/l PC II PCA Act registered and investigation entrusted to I/ C PP Sudhmahadev. During investigation theinvolvement of the person subject herein was established and the challan of thecase was produced in the court of law vide challan no.7812023 on 21.08.2023.The subject was convicted by the Hon'ble JMIC, Chenani and fined with Rs 5000/-."
"Case FIR NO. 13612023 U/S 188 IPC ll PCA Act of P/S Chenani. Brief facts of the case are that on12.09.2023 a case FIR No. I3612023 U/S 188IPC in this P/ S on the docket produced by SPO Ashok Kumar No.68l/SPO on behalf of PSI Rahul Singh V C PP Sudhmahadev mentioning in that duringpatrolling in the J/ D of PP Sudhmahadev one vehicle Tata Yodha was stopped for checking but unknown driver escaped from place. During checking of the vehicle 05 no's of bovine animals were found in the said vehicle tide with ropes in a cruel manner without any arrangement of fodder etc. and without any DM permission. During investigation the involvement of the person subject herein,as established and the challan of the case was produced in the court of law videchallanNo.96/2023 on 20.11.2023. The subject was convicted by the Hon'bleJMIC, Chanani and fined with Rs 5200/-."
12. Perusal of the record would show that after the order of detention was passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Udhampur, the same was approved by the Home Department. The FIRs referred to in the grounds of detention are the feeding support to the characterization of detenu as formulated by respondent No.2-District Magistrate, and the objective of the preventive detention order against the detenu is to prevent him from acting 9 in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order. The allegations levelled and FIRs mentioned in grounds of detention and relied upon by detaining authority relate back to 2023 and those cases have culminated into his conviction by imposition of fine. There is, thus, no FIR registered thereafter in order to show his involvement later on, which could warrant preventive detention of detenu. On record there is not even a single incident referred to or reported that by alleged involvements of the detenu in any of the FIRs, communal tension or disharmony came to take place on any occasion which led to the law-and-order enforcement agency facing a difficult time in bringing under control the disturbed public order so as to showcase detenu to be a threat to maintenance of public order.
13. The "Public Order" as a concept in distinction to "Law and Order" has been considered by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases. In the case of "K. K. Saravana BabuVs State of Tamil Nadu and another" (2OO8)9 SCC 89, theHon'ble Supreme Court of India has recapitulated the case law onthe said aspect in which the Security of the State followed by thePublic Order and last by "Law and Order" has been set up in anhierarchy. The "Public Order" has been read to be even the tempoof the life of the community taking the country as a whole or evena specified locality. Disturbance of Public Order is meant to bedistinguished from acts directing against individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbanceof public tranquility.
14. By reference to a case of "Arun Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal,"(1970)1 SCC 1998, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiahas laid emphasis on the potentiality of the act to be adetermining factor to compartmentalize an act to be onedisturbing public order or a law-and-order 10 problem. It has beenobserved that an act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity as in its quality it may not differ from another but in itspotentiality, it may be very different.
15. The Supreme Court of India in a case titled as"Sama Aruna Vs State of Telangana and another" (2018)12 SCC 15O in paras 17 &23 has held as under:-
"17............A detention order which is founded on stale incidents, must beregarded as an order of punishment for a crime, passedwithout a trial, though purporting to be an order ofpreventive detention. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punishhim for something he has done but to prevent him fromdoing it.
23............A detaining authority must be takento know both, the purpose and the procedure of law."
16. "Maintenance of Public Order" as being one of the grounds of subjecting a person to preventive detention is not to beeasily assumed to be readily available by a just reference to seriesof FIRs reporting crimes against a particular individual whichwould at the most render him to be branded as a habitualoffender for which the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in itselfhas conceived a preventive measure under section 110 whichenlists a number of categories for an Executive Magistrate to takecognizance and bind a person soas to prevent him from indulgingin repeat of the alleged activities. What is meant to be effectivelycured and dealt with under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be diverted to be dealt with by application of preventive detention mode of J&K Public SafetyAct, by depriving a person of his personal liberty for anygiven period of time. A preventive detention cannot be resorted toby the debunking ordinary criminal procedure and trial of cases.
17. Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur in his dossierdid not serve respondent No. 2 - District Magistrate, Udhampur with full picture of 11 facts with respect to the detenu.All the three FIRs referred to in the grounds of detention are those cases in which detenu has already been convicted. Offences under Section 188 Penal Code read with offence under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 in which detenu is said to be involved are not relatable in any manner to maintenance of public order. Moreover, in the grounds of detention it is mentioned that due to involvement of detenu in any of aforesaid FIRs, any communal tension or disharmony came to take place which led to the law and order enforcement agency facing a difficult time in bringing under control the disturbed public order.
18. It may be appropriate to mention that perusal of grounds of detention reveals that grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous and do not refer to any date, month or year of the activities, which have been attributed to detenu. Detention in preventive custody on the basis of such vague and ambiguous grounds cannot be justified. It may not be out of place to mention here that preventive detention is largely precautionary and is based on suspicion. The Court is ill-equipped to investigate into circumstances of suspicion on which such anticipatory action must be largely based. The nature of the proceeding is incapable of objective assessment. The matters to be considered by the detaining authority are whether the person concerned, having regard to his past conduct judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and other relevant material, is likely to act in a prejudicial manner as contemplated by the provisions of the law and, if so, whether it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from so acting. These are not the matters susceptible of objective determination, and they could not have been intended to be judged by objective standards. They are essentially the matters which have to be administratively determined for the purpose of 12 taking administrative action. Their determination is, therefore, deliberately and advisedly left by the Legislature to the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority which, by reason of its special position, experience and expertise, would be best suited to decide them. Thus, the Constitutional imperatives of Article 22(5) and the dual obligation imposed on the authority making the order of preventive detention, are twofold: (1) The detaining authority must, as soon as may be, i.e. as soon as practicable, after the detention order is passed, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order of detention has been made, and (2) the detaining authority must afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making the representation against the order of detention, i.e. to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation which, on being considered, may obtain relief to him. The inclusion of an irrelevant or non-existent ground, among other relevant grounds, is an infringement of the first of the rights and the inclusion of an obscure or vague ground, among other clear and definite grounds, is an infringement of the second of the rights. In either case there is an invasion of the constitutional rights of the detenu entitling him to approach the Court for relief. The reason why the inclusion of even a simple irrelevant or obscure ground, among several relevant and clear grounds, is an invasion of the detenu's constitutional right is that the Court is precluded from adjudicating upon the sufficiency of the grounds, and it cannot substitute its objective decision for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Even if one of the grounds or reasons, which led to subjective satisfaction of detaining authority, is non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid. Where order of detention is founded on distinct and separate grounds, if any one of 13 the grounds is vague or irrelevant the entire order must fall. The satisfaction of detaining authority being subjective, it is impossible to predicate whether the order would have been passed in the absence of vague or irrelevant data. A ground is said to be irrelevant when it has no connection with the satisfaction of the authority making the order of detention. Irrelevant grounds, being taken into consideration for making the order of detention, are sufficient to vitiate it. One irrelevant ground is sufficient to vitiate the order as it is not possible to assess, in what manner and to what extent, that irrelevant ground operated on the mind of the appropriate authority, and contributed to his satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order or security of the State. Reference in this regard is made to Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of J&K and others, AIR 1979 SC 1925; and Mohd. Yaqoob v. State of J&K and ors, 2008 (2) JKJ 255 [HC].
19. Grounds of detention must lay down the charge against detenu and it must be precise, unequivocal and unambiguous. The detenu must be in a position to give a specific reply/rebuttal to the charge and that is only possible where charge is specific and precise. Else, the detenu is only able to give a bare denial by stating that the allegations are false. If the grounds of detention are based on unsubstantiated allegations, the same along with the order of detention can be quashed as the detenu has not been given opportunity to make a viable representation either to detaining authority or to advisory board. The opportunity to represent to the authorities concerned is not a hollow formality. To detain a person only based on allegations without there being any material to substantiate those allegations would 14 imperil the fundamental rights of an individual enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. These observations have been made by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA no.19/2024 titled as Showkat Ali v. Union Territory of J&K and others, vide judgement dated 26.07.2024.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the preventive detention of detenu is held to be unwarranted and misconceived and illegal. Accordingly, thepreventive detention Order No. 15-PSA-2024 dated 26.12.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Udhampur under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty.
21. The respondent No. 2 - District Magistrate, Udhampur as well as the Superintendent of the concerned Jail to ensure releaseof the detenu from the preventive custody unless required in any other case.
22. The instant writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
23. Detention record to be returned back to Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, learned GA by the Registrar Judicialof this Court.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Jammu 27.09.2025 (Bir) Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No