Court holds that a detention order copying dossier without recording reasons—especially ignoring the grant of bail—violates Article 22(5) and established Supreme Court precedents, affirming that such non-application of mind vitiates the order and must be quashed. Binding on all subordinate courts of J&K, this judgment reaffirms Anant Sakharam Raut (AIR 1987 SC 137) and Jai Singh (AIR 1985 SC 764) as authoritative.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | HCP/102/2024 of ARSLAAN MOHI UD DIN SHEIKH Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME DEPARTMENT) |
| CNR | JKHC010016572024 |
| Decision Date | 28-08-2025 |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar |
| Bench | Single-judge bench |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Preventive Detention / Constitutional law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a preventive detention order under the J&K PSA is invalid if the detaining authority fails to apply its mind to mandatory facts such as grant of bail? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The detaining authority must record reasons why preventive detention is necessary despite release on bail. An order that merely copies the dossier or omits key facts like bail reflects non-application of mind and is vitiated. Established precedents (Anant Sakharam Raut; Jai Singh) mandate genuine consideration of all material before a PSA order is passed. Such non-application of mind amounts to a breach of Article 22(5) safeguards and warrants quashing. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Anant Sakharam Raut and Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 137; Jai Singh and Ors vs State of J&K, AIR 1985 SC 764 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Held that a detention order copying dossier verbatim or omitting grant-of-bail facts shows failure to exercise discretion. Cited Supreme Court rulings requiring detaining authorities to apply mind to every aspect before ordering preventive detention. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The detenue was arrested in FIR 38/2023 (Nowhatta PS), granted bail on 10.02.2024, then detained under PSA on 29.03.2024 without recording reasons or mentioning bail, nor supplying material relied upon. |
| Citations | HCP/102/2024; AIR 1987 SC 137; AIR 1985 SC 764 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; Supreme Court |
| Follows | Anant Sakharam Raut (AIR 1987 SC 137); Jai Singh (AIR 1985 SC 764) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that detaining authorities under the J&K PSA must record specific reasons justifying preventive detention despite grant of bail.
- Confirms that an order verbatim from the dossier demonstrates non-application of mind and is invalid.
- Emphasises strict compliance with Article 22(5) and Section 13 (supply of material) safeguards.
- Provides a fresh High Court authority to oppose any PSA order lacking individualized reasoning.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The detention records showed no mention of bail grant or compelling reasons for preventive detention despite bail.
- The impugned order mirrored the police dossier, evidencing non-application of mind.
- Cited Anant Sakharam Raut (AIR 1987 SC 137): non-application of mind by detaining authority vitiates detention.
- Cited Jai Singh (AIR 1985 SC 764): verbatim copying of dossier underscores lack of discretion.
- Concluded that absence of recorded reasons and failure to consider bail status breached Article 22(5); order quashed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Father on behalf of detenue)
- Detaining authority failed to mention bail or record compelling reasons.
- Grounds of detention were vague and replicated the police dossier.
- No material was supplied; non-application of mind was evident.
Respondents (UT, District Magistrate, SSP)
- Detenue involved in anti-national activities; posed threat to public order.
- Proper safeguards under PSA and Article 22(5) were followed.
- Material relied upon was supplied; authority retains power to detain post-bail.
Factual Background
Arsalaan Mohi-ud-din Sheikh was arrested in FIR 38/2023 (Nowhatta PS) and admitted to bail on 10.02.2024. Despite bail, the District Magistrate issued a PSA order on 29.03.2024 detaining him without recording reasons or supplying material. The High Court found blatant non-application of mind, quashed the order, and directed immediate release.
Statutory Analysis
The court examined relevant provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, and Article 22(5) of the Constitution, including the duty to supply grounds and material under Section 13 of the PSA. It emphasised that discretion under preventive detention statutes demands recorded application of mind to all mandatory facts, failing which orders are void.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established Supreme Court law on non-application of mind.
Citations
- HCP/102/2024 (High Court of J&K & Ladakh; 28.08.2025)
- Anant Sakharam Raut and Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 137
- Jai Singh and Ors vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1985 SC 764