MOHD MANZOOR TH HIS WIFE ARSHAD BEGUM vs UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU


HCP No. 06/2026





Reserved on: 20.08.2026

Pronounced on: 29.08.2026
Uploaded on: 29.08.2026

Operative part or full judgment: Full



Mohd. Manzoor
S/O Mohd. Khan,
R/O Village Talwal
Tehsil & District Rajouri

Through his wife-Arshad Begum
… Petitioner(s)



Through: Mr. Irfan Khan, Advocate.

Vs.



1. UT of Jammu & Kashmir through
Commissioner/Secretary (Home)
Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.



2. District Magistrate, Rajouri.


3. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Rajouri.
4. Superintendent,
Central Jail,
Kote Bhalwal, Jammu.



Respondent(s)


Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

CORAM:
JUDGMENT


01. Through the medium of this Habeas Corpus Petition, filed
through his wife-Arshad Begum, the petitioner-Mohd.
Manzoor (hereinafter called ‘detenue’ ) seeks quashment of
HCP No. 19/2026 Page 1 of 10

Order No. DMR/PSA/11 of 2025 dated 30.12.2025
(hereinafter called ‘detention order’ ) passed by the
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri (hereinafter
called ‘detaining authority’ ) whereby and whereunder, in
terms of Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety
Act (for short, PSA), he had been ordered to be detained
under preventive detention in order to prevent him from
acting in any manner, which is highly prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order.
02. The impugned detention order has been challenged mainly
on the grounds, firstly that the grounds of detention are
vague, mechanical and based merely upon registration of
FIRs, which do not disclose any activity prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order; secondly, that no subjective
satisfaction has been drawn by the detaining authority
while passing the detention order as in three of the four
FIRs i.e., FIR Nos. 172/2022, 257/2022 & 510/2025 on
the basis of which the detention order was passed, the
detenue has already been convicted, while the fourth FIR
i.e., FIR No. 559/2025 is still under investigation; thirdly
that the detenue has not been informed about his right to
make effective representation to the detaining authority.
03. Pursuant to notice, the respondent No. 2 has filed the
counter affidavit, asserting therein that the detention order

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 2 of 10

has been passed strictly in accordance with law after
application of mind and upon subjective satisfaction based
on cogent material placed before him; that the impugned
detention order has been passed after due compliance of
the Constitution and provisions of J&K Public Safety Act;
that the repeated involvement of the detenue in such acts
has the potential to disturb the tempo of life, create fear
and communal disharmony and trigger law and order
problems, thereby squarely falling within the ambit of
Public Order; that all the relevant material was provided to
the detenue and the contents of the detention order were
read over and explained to the detenue in Hindi/Urdu,
which he fully understood; that the detenue was also
informed of his right to make representation to the
Government as well as to the detaining authority. Lastly,
he has argued that the impugned detention order be upheld
and the petition filed by the detenue, being devoid of any
merit and substance, be rejected.
04. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention
record and considered.
05. The impugned detention order was passed by District
Magistrate to prevent the detenue from the criminal
activities, highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order, while making reference to his involvement in FIR

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 3 of 10

Nos. 172/2022 under sections 188 IPC and 11 PC Act,
257/2022 under sections 188 IPC and 11 PC Act,
510/2025 under sections 223 BNS, 11 PC Act and 3/181
MV Act and 559/2025 under sections 223 BNS and 11 PC
Act, with the accusation that he was found transporting the
bovines without any valid permission from the competent
authority.
06. So far as the first ground of challenge that the grounds of
detention are vague, mechanical and based merely upon
registration of FIRs, which do not disclose any activity
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is concerned,
in this regard, it is to be noted that in the grounds of
detention, reference is made to four FIRs i.e., FIR Nos.
172/2022 under sections 188 IPC and 11 PC Act,
257/2022 under sections 188 IPC and 11 PC Act,
510/2025 under sections 223 BNS, 11 PC Act and 3/181
MV Act and 559/2025 under sections 223 BNS and 11 PC
Act, with the accusation that he was found transporting the
bovines without any valid permission from the competent
authority.
07. It has been contended by learned counsel for the
respondents that the fact that the petitioner has indulged
in as many as four cases of bovine smuggling shows that he
has no respect for the law and his continuous

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 4 of 10

criminal/anti-social activities are prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order in the district and his repeated
involvement in such offences clearly demonstrates his
criminal propensity and disregard for the law.
08. In somewhat similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case o f Bhupinder Kumar alias Pappu
Krishan Lal Vs. UT of J&K & Ors, AIR Online 2025 J&K
499 has, while dealing with the effect of allegations relating
to transportation of bovine animals and cruelty against
animals and considering the issue as to whether such
allegations would have the potential of disturbing the
public order, made the following observations:
16. It appears that the detenue was charged for having
contravened the order issued by the District Magistrate to
have transported the bovine animals without permission,
therefore, simply registering a case under section 188 IPC
does not “ipso facto ‟ constitute an offence of “bovine
smuggling ‟ . Transportation without permission can be a
disobedience of an order issued by public authority which
does not necessarily mean that it amounts to bovine
smuggling of which the detenue has been alleged. For
example a person who transports his own animals or
purchased animals from one district to another without
permission cannot be stated to have smuggled such bovine
animals and such an offence if committed by a person can be
dealt with under the penal law for which invoking the
preventive detention of a person for a period of one year,
without affording him an opportunity of being heard or without
being tried would be a travesty of justice. The detaining
authority in this case has, thus, exceeded its jurisdiction to

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 5 of 10

state that the detention order was required to be passed so as
to prevent the detenue from carrying on the activities
prejudicial to the public order. Public order is a form of
development, which erupts due to public anger and is
something beyond the failure of the law and order, therefore,
without any such development, it cannot be stated that the
detenue was a threat to the maintenance of public order, so as
to attract his detention.

17. Instead of being contended with, investigation into,
prosecution therefor, with regard to penal offences, the State
should not take recourse to preventive detention of an accused
of such offences, without there being any right to bail, as
during trial. Preventive detention is a strong arm tactic of the
State to divest a citizen, from his most cherishable
fundamental right of “personal liberty ‟ . The State should not
resort to take recourse to preventive detention, on drop of a
hat, but reserve this option for exceptionally grave cases,
which may call for the same, having regard to the prejudicial
activities to public order or national security. Public order is a
grave situation, much beyond the law and order situation. In
the detenue ‟ s case, no such instance or activity on his part
has been shown that there was any problem of law and order
even, the State had to tackle with, not to talk of public order.

09. From the foregoing analysis of legal position, it is clear that
merely because the petitioner is alleged to be involved in
the offences relating to transportation of bovine animals
without permission is not a sufficient ground to invoke the
remedy of preventive detention, particularly, in a case
where the detaining authority has not recorded any
subjective satisfaction that such activities of the detenue
have either resulted or have the potential to lead to public

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 6 of 10

outrage. The impugned order of detention is, therefore,
unsustainable in law on this ground.

10. The second ground of challenge is that no subjective
satisfaction has been drawn by the detaining authority
while passing the detention order as in three of the four
FIRs i.e., FIR Nos. 172/2022, 257/2022 & 510/2025 on
the basis of which the detention order was passed, the
detenue has already been convicted, while the fourth FIR
i.e., FIR No. 559/2025 is still under investigation. The said
contention that the requisite subjective satisfaction was
not arrived at by the Detaining Authority merits
acceptance. The detention order is based upon four FIRs,
namely, FIR Nos. 172/2022, 257/2022, 510/2025 and
559/2025. It is an admitted position that, in respect of
three of the said FIRs, namely, FIR Nos. 172/2022,
257/2022 and 510/2025, the detenue had already been
convicted, whereas FIR No. 559/2025 was still under
investigation. The fact that three of the four cases had
already culminated in conviction constituted a vital and
relevant circumstance, which the Detaining Authority
was required to consider while arriving at its subjective
satisfaction. The Detaining Authority was required to
examine whether, notwithstanding the culmination of
those proceedings, the said cases continued to furnish a

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 7 of 10

live and proximate basis for apprehending that the
detenue was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. The mere reproduction
or reference to such FIRs, without consideration of their
changed status and their continuing relevance, cannot by
itself constitute the requisite subjective satisfaction.
11.
So far as FIR No. 559/2025 is concerned, the same was
admittedly still under investigation, and its mere
pendency could not, in isolation, establish the necessity
for preventive detention. The Detaining Authority was
required to consider the material emerging from the
investigation and satisfy itself that such material
disclosed a real and proximate likelihood of the detenue
engaging in prejudicial activities in future. Thus, when
three out of the four FIRs relied upon had already
culminated in conviction and the fourth was still under
investigation, the Detaining Authority was required to
undertake a careful and independent assessment of the
present relevance of each case and its nexus with the
alleged future threat. In the absence of any discernible
consideration of these material circumstances, the
satisfaction recorded in the detention order cannot be
regarded as a genuine and independent satisfaction but
appears to be mechanical and vitiated by non-application

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 8 of 10

of mind. The impugned detention order, therefore, cannot
be sustained on this ground.
12. So far as third ground of challenge that the detenue has
not been informed about his right to make effective
representation to the detaining authority, it is established
from the perusal of record that detaining authority, has
neither in the detention order nor in the grounds of
detention, informed about his right to make a
representation to the detaining authority as well as to the
Government. In fact, in the communication dated
30.12.2025, the detenue was informed that you may
make a representation against the detention order to the
Government only, but omitted to inform that such a
representation can be made to the detaining authority
also.
13. The constitutional guarantee of making a representation
is meaningful only when the detenue is clearly informed
of the authorities before whom such representation can
be made and the earliest opportunity to exercise that
right. Non-communication of this valuable constitutional
right deprives the detenue of an effective opportunity to
challenge the detention at the earliest stage, thereby
vitiating the detention order. The same constitutes a

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 9 of 10

violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Since the
procedural safeguards governing preventive detention are
mandatory and must be strictly complied with, such
omission vitiates the detention order illegal and liable to
be set aside.
14. As a sequel to the aforementioned discussion and
observations made hereinabove, the present petition is
allowed . Consequently, impugned detention order is
quashed. The detenue is directed to be released forthwith
if not required in any other case(s). The detention record
be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.
15. Disposed of accordingly along with connected
application(s), if any.

(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
29.08.2026
Naresh/Secy.


Whether order is speaking: Yes
Whether order is reportable: Yes
Naresh Kumar
2026.08.29 18:29
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

HCP No. 6/2026 Page 10 of 10