JAMMU, Jul 16: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the detention of Rahil Gargotra under the Public Safety Act, holding that a citizen’s liberty cannot be curtailed through an incomplete or mechanical exercise of preventive detention powers.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri directed the authorities to release the petitioner forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case.
Gargotra had challenged Detention Order No. PSA-13 of 2025, passed on September 6, 2025, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. Following the order, he was lodged in District Jail, Udhampur.
Advocates Rahul Raina and Hasnain Shakeel, appearing for the petitioner, argued that material facts relating to his arrest, continued custody and grant of bail in FIR No. 139/2025 of Police Station Janipur had not been placed before the detaining authority.
The petitioner had been arrested in the FIR on August 28, 2025, and remained in custody when the detention order was passed on September 6 and executed on September 7.
He was also granted bail by the trial court on September 6. However, the respondents claimed that the bail order pertained to the petitioner’s brother, Sahil Gargotra.
The High Court noted that the trial court subsequently corrected the typographical error through an order dated October 6, 2025, and clarified that the bail had, in fact, been granted to Rahil Gargotra.
The court held that once the competent trial court corrected the error, the administration could not rely upon the earlier mistake to sustain the detention order.
The respondents contended that the police dossier had been prepared on August 21, before the registration of FIR No. 139/2025, and the fresh case could not have formed part of it.
Rejecting the explanation, Justice Sekhri observed that the validity of the detention order had to be examined with reference to the date on which it was passed. Every material circumstance existing on September 6 was required to be placed before the detaining authority.
The court said the petitioner’s custody status and bail order had a direct bearing on the necessity of preventive detention and were essential for forming a lawful subjective satisfaction.
Where a person is already in custody, the detaining authority must be conscious of that fact and record compelling reasons showing a real possibility of release and the likelihood of the person indulging in prejudicial activities thereafter, the court observed.
The High Court reiterated that preventive detention is an exceptional power permitting deprivation of liberty without trial and cannot be used as a substitute for ordinary criminal law.
It further held that non-placement of relevant material deprived the detaining authority of the opportunity to consider the complete factual position and rendered its subjective satisfaction legally unsustainable.
The court also took exception to the delay in deciding the petitioner’s representation against the detention order.
Gargotra submitted his representation on October 4, 2025, but it was decided only on November 7 and communicated to him on November 13.
Observing that no satisfactory explanation was offered for the delay of more than one month, the court said the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5) required representations against preventive detention to be considered with utmost expedition.
“Mere disposal of the representation after delay would not satisfy the constitutional requirement,” the court observed.
Justice Sekhri held that the failure to place the fresh FIR, custody status and bail order before the detaining authority amounted to non-application of mind. The unexplained delay in deciding the representation constituted an additional ground for setting aside the detention.
Consequently, the court allowed the habeas corpus petition, quashed the PSA detention order and directed the petitioner’s immediate release.
Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh appeared for the J&K administration.