ASLAM KHAN TH. ITS FATHER JUNEED AHMED ALIAS JANAT KHAN vs UT OF J AND K TH. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU


Reserved on
Pronounced on
Uploaded on
29 .10.2026
05.11.2026
06.11.2026

Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full


HCP No. 34/2026

Aslam Khan th. his father
Juneed Ahmed Alias Janat Khan.
...Petitioner /Appellant(s)
Through: - Mr. Rajnesh Singh Parihar, Advocate
vs.
Union Territory of J&K and others ...Respondent(s)

Through: - Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT


1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present writ petition, has
challenged Order No. 01-PSA of 2026 dated 24.01.2026, issued by the
District Magistrate, Udhampur, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the
petitioner, namely, Aslam Khan, S/o Zuneed Ahmed, R/o Narsoo, Tehsil
and District Udhampur, has been placed under preventive detention with
a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order.
2. The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner
on the grounds that the same has been issued mechanically and without
application of mind. It has been contended that the grounds of detention
are a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier. It has further been

contended that the incidents alleged in the grounds of detention are not
of such a nature as would endanger public order and that the alleged
activities of the petitioner do not have the potential to disturb public
order. It has also been contended that the alleged activities of the
petitioner have neither resulted in communal tension nor caused any
public unrest and, therefore, it was not open to the detaining authority to
pass the impugned order of detention. It has further been contended that
the grounds of detention and other relevant documents have not been
provided to the petitioner in a language understood by him, nor were the
contents of the same explained to him. It has also been submitted that the
petitioner was not informed of his right to make a representation against
the order of detention before the detaining authority as well as before the
Government.

3. The respondent-detaining authority has filed its counter affidavit,
wherein it has been submitted that the impugned order of detention has
been passed after due examination of the entire record annexed with the
police dossier. It has been contended that the activities of the petitioner
have significantly disturbed public order and instilled fear among the
local citizens. It has been submitted that the petitioner, by establishing a
nexus with other criminals and by organizing bovine smuggling
operations, posed a direct threat to the peaceful coexistence of the
community. It has further been submitted that the activities of the
petitioner have fostered feelings of animosity and discord within the
community, particularly because his alleged involvement in the illegal
trafficking of cattle has deeply angered a particular segment of the



HCP No. 34
/2026


Page
2
of
7

population, thereby giving rise to an apprehension of a potential
disturbance of public order in District Udhampur.
4. It has further been submitted that despite having been convicted in two
cases, the petitioner has shown no remorse and he has failed to mend his
ways, as such, the detaining authority was left with no alternative but to
pass the impugned order of detention. It has also been submitted that the
entire material forming basis of the grounds of detention has been
furnished to the petitioner and that the contents thereof were read over
and explained to him in Urdu/Dogri, languages, which he fully
understands. He was also made aware of his right to make a
representation against the order of detention.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case. I have also gone through the detention record.

6. The first ground urged by the petitioner for challenging the impugned
order of detention is that the activities allegedly attributed to him do not
pose any threat to public order. It has been submitted that the petitioner
is alleged to be involved in bovine smuggling and that such acts can be
dealt with under the ordinary criminal law as the same do not endanger
tempo of life. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, has
placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of
Din Mohd Wani v. UT of J&K and Others , [HCP No. 35/2026, decided
on 06.10.2026] Makhan Lal @ Makhni v. UT of J&K , [HCP No.
91/2025, decided on 13.02.2026] and Hamid Mohd v. UT of J&K and
Others , [HCP No. 4/2024, decided on 06.08.2024].



HCP No. 34
/2026


Page
3
of
7

7. In the above context, it is to be noted that, in the present case, the
grounds of detention make reference to FIR No. 24/2023 of Police
Station Chenani, FIR No. 98/2025 of Police Station Chenani and FIR
No. 110/2023 of Police Station Batote. All these three FIRs relate to the
transportation of bovine animals towards Kashmir for the purpose of
smuggling/slaughtering. FIR No. 24/2023 has culminated in the
conviction of the petitioner. The challan in FIR No. 98/2025 has been
produced before the competent Court. So far as FIR No. 110/2023 of
Police Station Batote is concerned, the petitioner has also suffered
conviction in the said case as well.
8. In all the aforesaid FIRs it is alleged that the petitioner was found
transporting bovine animals for slaughtering purposes. A perusal of the
seizure memos relating to the FIRs, which have been referred to in the
grounds of detention, reveals that the bovine animals also included cows,
which are held in reverence by a particular religious community. The
detaining authority has recorded in the grounds of detention that the
activities of the petitioner have the potential to incite religious hatred and
provoke retaliatory violence, thereby jeopardizing the fragile communal
harmony in the area. It has further been recorded by the detaining
authority that the illegal trade in cattle is perceived by certain religious
groups as being intended for slaughter, which offends their religious
beliefs and, consequently, fuels a sense of religious persecution. On the
basis of these observations, the District Magistrate has apprehended that
the activities of the petitioner have the potential to hurt the sentiments of
a particular community at large and create feelings of enmity and



HCP No. 34
/2026


Page
4
of
7

disharmony on religious grounds, thereby disturbing public order in the
area. The apprehension expressed by the detaining authority cannot be
termed imaginary, particularly in view of the allegation that the
petitioner was transporting bovine animals, including cows, for
slaughtering purposes.
9. It is a settled law that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority cannot ordinarily be a subject matter of judicial review unless
the same is based on flimsy grounds or appears to be irrational or
extraneous to the object sought to be achieved. In the present case, the
alleged activities of the petitioner offer a reasonable basis for the
detaining authority to apprehend that the same may lead to a disturbance
of public order. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining
authority, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot be
said to be based on flimsy grounds nor can the same be termed as
irrational. This Court, as such, cannot undertake a judicial review of the
subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority. The
contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore,
without any merit.
10. So far as the judgments referred to and relied upon by the petitioner are
concerned, the same have been delivered in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of those cases. In those cases, the bovine animals were not
being transported for slaughtering purposes, whereas, in the present case,
there are specific allegations that the petitioner was transporting bovine
animals, including cows, for slaughtering purposes. Therefore, the ratio



HCP No. 34
/2026


Page
5
of
7

laid down in the aforesaid judgments cannot be applied to the facts of the
present case.
11. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the entire material relied
upon by the detaining authority has not been supplied to him is
concerned, the same is without any substance. A perusal of the detention
record reveals that the petitioner was supplied a total of 34 leaves,
comprising the grounds of detention (4 leaves), PSA warrant (1 leaf),
notice of detention (1 leaf), and dossier/FIRs and other relevant
documents (28 leaves). The receipt executed by the petitioner shows that
the contents of the aforesaid documents have been explained to him in
Urdu and Dogri languages. The executing official, PSI Ravinder Singh,
has also furnished an undertaking to the effect that he has briefed the
petitioner about the grounds of detention in a language understood by
him. In view of the aforesaid material available on record, the contention
of the petitioner that whole of grounds of detention have not been
furnished to him or that the contents of the material relied upon by the
detaining authority have not been explained to him, appears to be
contrary to the record.
12. It has also been contended that the petitioner was not informed about his
right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention.
In this regard, a perusal of the copy of the notice of detention dated
24.01.2026 placed on record by the petitioner, reveals that he was duly
informed of his right to make a representation against the order of
detention before the District Magistrate as well as before the



HCP No. 34
/2026


Page
6
of
7

Government. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner in this regard
is, therefore, without any substance.
13. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not find any ground to
interfere with the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
14. The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

Jammu:
05.11.2026
Karam Chand
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No



HCP No. 34
/2026


Page
7
of
7