-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:35 AM
High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu, presided by Hon'ble Justice Puneet Gupta, delivered a significant ruling in the case of Balram Singh v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (Habeas Corpus Petition No. HCP 62 of 2024). The court quashed the preventive detention order issued under the Public Safety Act, 1978, against the petitioner, Balram Singh, on grounds of "non-application of mind" by the District Magistrate, Kathua. The court held that the detention order was invalid due to the failure of the authorities to consider crucial bail orders and the lack of a proximate link between the detention and the registered FIRs.
Balram Singh, the petitioner, had been detained by an order dated February 20, 2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua, under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, with the aim to prevent him from engaging in criminal activities that could endanger public order and human life. The detention was based on several FIRs registered against Singh, most notably FIR No. 141/2023. Singh’s wife challenged the detention order, seeking its quashing on several grounds, including non-application of mind by the detaining authority, failure to consider bail orders, and non-consideration of a representation made on behalf of Singh.
Non-Application of Mind: The petitioner had been granted bail in all the FIRs cited in the detention order. However, the detention order made no mention of the bail orders, raising concerns of "non-application of mind" by the detaining authority.
Delay in Passing Detention Order: The last FIR was registered in May 2023, but the detention order was passed nine months later in February 2024. This raised questions about the absence of a proximate link between the grounds of detention and the alleged criminal activities.
Failure to Consider Representation: The authorities failed to consider a representation made by the petitioner through his wife, which violated constitutional guarantees.
The High Court emphasized the importance of mentioning the petitioner’s bail orders in the detention order. Since the petitioner had been granted bail in all the FIRs mentioned, the failure to acknowledge these bail orders reflected a significant lapse by the detaining authority. The court observed:
“Non-mention of the grant of bail in the detention order is a serious lapse which gives rise to the inference that there is non-application of mind by the detaining authority.”
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra, the court reinforced that failure to consider bail orders amounts to clear non-application of mind, thereby vitiating the detention order.
The court noted that the detention order was passed nine months after the registration of the last FIR. This delay undermined the validity of the detention as there was no "proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the petitioner’s criminal activities. The court held:
“There is no proximate link of the detention order with the grounds of detention and particularly in reference to the FIRs mentioned in the detention order.”
The court found that the petitioner had submitted a representation on April 2, 2024, which was not considered by the authorities. The court ruled that this failure constituted a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights:
"The non-consideration of the representation made by the petitioner is indeed in violation of the constitutional and legal guarantee provided to the petitioner."
The High Court quashed the preventive detention order against Balram Singh, finding it unsustainable in law due to non-application of mind, a lack of proximate link between the grounds of detention and the FIRs, and the failure of authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation. The court ordered the petitioner’s immediate release unless he was required in any other case.
Date of Decision: 19/09/2024
Balram Singh v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
