Din Mohd Wani vs UT Of J&K & Ors.

Petitioner-Din Mohd Wani, S/O Munnar Wani, R/O Shuryan Tehsil Doda, District Doda (hereinafter referred to as “the detenue”) through the medium of this petition filed through his son, challenged the Detention Order No. PSA/02 of 2026 dated 28.04.2026 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”), issued by respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Doda (hereinafter referred to as “the detaining authority”), whereby he has been placed under preventive detention, in order to prevent him from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of „public order‟.

The petitioner has contended that the detaining authority has passed the impugned order mechanically, without application of mind and in violation of the constitution safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India; that there is no sufficient ground to connect the alleged activities of alleged „bovine smuggling‟, „illegal transportation‟ and „slaughtering of bovines‟ with the activity prejudicial to the maintenance of „public order‟; that there is no live or proximate link between the alleged activities and the detention order. The allegations, even if, taken at their face value, relate purely to „law and order‟ issues and not „public order‟; that the detaining authority has merely reproduced the police dossier verbatim, while formulating the grounds of detention, thereby demonstrating complete non-application of mind and absence of independent subjective satisfaction; that the DD entries relied upon by the respondents are vague, repetitive and stereotyped in nature.

Pursuant to the notice, the respondents filed counter affidavit through respondent No. 3, wherein the respondents have denied the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition as factually incorrect and legally misconceived; that the detention of the petitioner is not punitive; instead, it is purely preventive detention on the basis of the dossier provided by the police, containing the previous and present conduct of the detenue; that, keeping in view the prejudicial activities of the detenue, the preventive detention has been ordered so as to deter him from acting and/or indulging in those activities; that the petitioner has raised disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon in a writ petition; that the detaining authority has observed all the safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, while directing his detention; that the liberty of the detenue is subservient to the welfare, safety and interest of society at large, as such, the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority within the ambit of law. It has been further asserted that the detenue was involved in cases of commission of several offences punishable under Sections 299 and 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA), 1990, registered at Police Station, Doda, and the detaining authority had drawn its satisfaction on the basis of cogent, credible and incriminating material against the detenue to prevent him from the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of „public order‟, and finally, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed and the impugned order be upheld

Mr. N. D. Qazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making reference to the grounds raised, has, inter alia, restricted his arguments and argued that the detaining authority has shown involvement of the detenue in two cases for the commission of offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and on the basis thereof, has drawn satisfaction to detain the detenue under preventive detention, which cannot be done in view of various judgments passed by this Court on the subject. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the law laid down by this Court in an earlier case, “Hamid Mohd. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.” (HCP No. 4/2024), in similar facts and circumstances, holding that the involvement of a person in cases of bovine smuggling or cruelty to animals, there being no instance of creating communal disharmony resulting in „public disorder‟, preventive detention cannot be ordered in terms of the J&K Public Safety Act. He has also taken the Court to the various other grounds enumerated in the petition and argued extensively in support thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Daily Diary (DD) entries dated 25.02.2026, 27.02.2026 and 01.03.2026 are almost identical in nature and do not disclose any fresh or independent incriminating material against the detenue. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned detention order be quashed and the petition be allowed. Lastly, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned detention order be quashed.

Mr. Adarsh Bhagat, learned GA, ex adverso, argued that smuggling of bovines and subjecting them to cruelty while transporting them without requisite permission, is a sensitive issue, for the reason that such activities do hurt the religious feelings of a particular community, where the cow is revered and considered sacred. He further submits that, on religious feelings being hurt, there is always an apprehension in the minds of law enforcement agencies that it can result in communal disharmony and consequently lead to a „law and order‟ problem, which may erupt in breach of Public Order. It was finally argued that the detenue, being a potential threat to the „public order‟, was rightly placed under preventive detention, in view of his continuous involvement in such activities. The learned counsel for the respondents also produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter-affidavit.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record and considered the matter.

The detention record, as produced, reveals that the detenue was involved in following 02 cases registered at Police Station, Doda:-

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, reiterated various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds:

So far as the DDR entries (supra), recorded within a short span of a week, are concerned, it is an admitted case that those have not culminated in any criminal cases. Merely recording DDRs alleging some acts, without specifying any activity allegedly carried out, cannot be the ground to detain a person. It is surprising that, if the acts mentioned in the DDR entries are criminal acts and are cognizable in nature, then why the State has not filed any First Information Report. Law provides that if a cognizable offence is committed and is brought to the knowledge of any authority, a First Information Report should be lodged. If at all those acts mentioned in the DDRs make out any criminal offence, what prevented the State from filing a First Information Report is a mystery

The second ground, as argued, is that the detenue was not informed about his right to make a representation before the detaining authority within the specified time frame, thereby violating his statutory and constitutional rights. It is translucently clear from a perusal of the impugned detention order that the Detaining Authority has not communicated to the detenue that he can make a representation to the detaining authority against the impugned detention order seeking its review and revocation, within a certain time period. The above fact of conveying the time period for approaching the detaining authority has not been communicated to the detenue, which is conspicuous on a bare reading of the communication No. 519-19/DM/Doda dated 28.04.2026, issued by the District Magistrate, Doda to the detenue, which shows that „you can also represent before District Magistrate, Doda against your detention, if you so desire‟

In a case of National Security Act, titled “Jitendra Vs. Dist. Magistrate, Barabanki & Ors.”, reported as 2004 Cri.L.J 2967, the Division Bench of Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court, has held:-

Since the detenue‟s right to make a representation to the detaining

authority was only available to him till the approval of the detention order by the Government, it follows as a logical imperative that the detaining authority should have communicated to the detenue, at the first hand, that he has a right to file a representation before the detaining authority as well, and secondly, the time limit, within which detenue could make a representation to it, i.e., till the approval of the detention order by the State Government. It is settled law that once the Government passes an order approving the order of detention, the Detaining Authority becomes functus officio and thereafter cannot review its order. Therefore, the Detaining Authority had to inform the detenue about his right at the very outset, so that the detenue could make a representation for reconsideration by the Detaining Authority. There is, therefore, force in the above argument of the detenue. On this count alone, the impugned detention order being unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.

The last ground, which has been urged by the learned counsel for the detenue, is that the Detaining Authority, while formulating the grounds of detention, has failed to apply its mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are almost a photocopy of the police dossier. A perusal of the grounds of detention and the police dossier reveals that the language and expressions used in both the documents are almost similar to each other, with intermixing of words here and there. This clearly shows that the Detaining Authority has acted in a mechanical manner.

The Supreme Court has, in the case of Jai Singh and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 561, clearly stated that where the grounds of detention are a verbatim reproduction of the dossier submitted by the police, it goes on to show that there is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. In Rajesh Vashdev Adnani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2005) 8 SCC 390, the Supreme Court again reiterated that where the detention order is a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, the said order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.

The next ground argued, referring to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding a petition titled “Hamid Mohd. Vs. UT of J&K & Ors.” (HCP No. 4/2024) on 06.08.2024, is that, on record, there is not even a single incident referred to or reported that, by the alleged involvement of the detenue in any one of the said FIRs registered for alleged bovine smuggling, the so-called communal tension or disharmony took place on such and such occasion, which led to the „law and order‟ enforcement agency suffering a difficult time in bringing under control the disturbed „public order‟, so as to showcase the detenue to be a threat to the maintenance of „public order‟. Paragraphs Nos. 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the judgment (supra), are reproduced for convenience as under:-

This Court again in a judgment titled as “Reham Ali Vs. UT of J&K & Ors” (HCP No. 9/2026) decided on 13.05.2026 has followed the dictum laid down in the case of “Hamid Mohd Vs. UT of J&K & Ors” (supra).

On a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is apparent that the detenue has been accused of being involved in the commission of illegal transportation of bovines and cruelty against animals, regarding which two FIRs had been registered at Police Station, Doda, viz., FIR No. 0050/2026 under Sections 223 BNS, 11 PCA and FIR No. 0133/2026 under Section 299 BNS. The detenue has been ordered to be detained in preventive custody, preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of „public order‟.

Both of the cases registered vide the aforestated FIRs were regarding illegal transportation of bovines. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the said FIRs do not specifically or categorically insinuate that the detenue is involved in the illegal transportation of such animals which are revered by a particular community.

The detention order, however, is conspicuously silent with regard to any development based on the cases relating to the maintenance of „public order‟. Though the detaining authority has apprehended the „public order‟ based on the FIRs (supra), however, the detaining authority has failed to record as to what was the „law and order‟ problem, much less than that of „public order‟, in the year 2025 or immediately after registration of the last FIR in the year 2026. Communal disharmony erupts at the spur of the moment and cannot be expected at a later stage. Since the registration of all the cases, which has been made the basis for the passing of the detention order, has neither evoked communal tension nor any problem of „law and order‟, which is even far away from „public order‟, is shown to have erupted.

This court, in view of the aforesaid opinion of the Coordinate Benches and the discussion made hereinabove, has no reason to take a different view in this regard and is persuaded to agree with the view expressed by the Coordinate Benches in the aforesaid cases.

The other grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be deliberated upon by this court, in view of succeeding of the writ petition on the grounds discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and impugned Detention Order No. PSA /02 of 2026 dated 28.04.2026 issued by respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Doda, is hereby quashed. The detenue- Din Mohd Wani, S/O Munnar Wani, R/O Shuryan, Tehsil Doda, District Doda is directed to be released forthwith, in case he is not required in any other case(s).

The detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents be returned to the respondents, through their counsel.