Facts
The petitioner challenged a preventive detention order (No. PSA 7 of 2025) dated 25.04.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, under the J&K Public Safety Act to maintain public order
Source reference: p. 1The grounds for detention cited three FIRs involving charges of murder, attempt to murder, and illegal trafficking
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner had secured bail in all three FIRs by 11.04.2025
Source reference: p. 5-6Despite this, police records indicated he was arrested in a fourth FIR (No. 14/2025) on 24.04.2025
Source reference: p. 6However, when the detention warrant was executed on 26.04.2025, the petitioner was still in the custody of Police Station Satwari—where he had already been granted bail—rather than the station handling the active fourth FIR
Source reference: p. 6-7The detaining authority failed to mention the petitioner’s existing custody or provide compelling reasons for preventive detention while he was already incarcerated
Source reference: p. 2, 7Issues
1. Whether the failure of the detaining authority to mention that the detenu was already in police custody at the time of passing the order constitutes non-application of mind
Source reference: p. 82. Whether the detention order is valid if passed primarily to defeat bail orders granted by competent courts
Source reference: p. 9Law Applied
The court primarily applied the constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding preventive detention under the J&K Public Safety Act
Source reference: p. 3It relied heavily on the precedent set in *Jai Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985)*, which established that if a detenu is already in custody, the detaining authority must show awareness of this fact and record specific reasons why preventive detention is still necessary
Source reference: p. 8-9The court further applied the principle that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for the legal process of seeking the cancellation of bail
Source reference: p. 9Reasoning
The court found a clear "non-application of mind" by respondent No. 2.
Source reference: no citationIt noted that the petitioner was granted bail in the three FIRs forming the basis of the grounds of detention, yet he was never released by the police
Source reference: p. 7The detaining authority’s failure to acknowledge the petitioner's actual custodial status at the time of the order (25.04.2025) was deemed fatal
Source reference: p. 8The Court observed that the execution report showed the petitioner was held at Police Station Satwari despite being bailed out there, suggesting the police withheld facts or the Magistrate failed to scrutinize the record
Source reference: p. 7Applying the *Jai Singh* precedent, the Court reasoned that since the authority did not assign reasons for needing preventive detention while the subject was already in custody, the order was passed in a "casual, indifferent and routine manner"
Source reference: p. 8-9Furthermore, the Court determined the order was a misuse of power intended to circumvent the bail orders of the judiciary rather than following the proper legal route of applying for bail cancellation
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The Court answered both issues in the affirmative, holding that the non-mention of the petitioner’s custody and the lack of compelling reasons for detention while in custody rendered the order unsustainable
The High Court quashed the detention order No. PSA 7 of 2025 and directed the respondents to release the petitioner from preventive custody immediately, provided he is not required in any other case
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
Daljot Singh v. UT of J&K & Ors. [2026:JKLHC-JMU:607]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in