1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 337/2024 Reserved on: 30.10.2025 Pronounced on: 21.11.2025 Mohammad Younis Bhat, aged 27 years S/o Gh. Mohi Ud Din Bhat R/o Tantray Mohallah Aripal Tehsil Aripal District Pulwama ……. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. Amin Khan, Advocate Versus 1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/ Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Pulwama 3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Awantipora, Pulwama .…Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqub, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of Order no.32/DMP/PSA/24 dated 09.09.2024 (impugned detention order) passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama – respondent no. 2, (for short ‘detailing authority’) whereby detenu, namely, Mohammad Younis Bhat S/o Gh. Mohi Ud Din Bhat R/o Tantray Mohallah Aripal Tehsil Aripal District Pulwama, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of State and directing his lodgement in District Jail Rajouri on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of Union Territory of J&K. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant. 2 I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have gone through the detention record produced by the counsel appearing for respondents and considered the matter. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that the detenu came to be arrested on 08.09.2024 by police station Tral and subsequently shifted to District Jail Rajouri to be detained under preventive detention in terms of impugned order of detention. Detenu is stated to have been earlier detained in terms of Detention Order No.53/DMP/PSA/18 dated 08.10.2018, which was challenged by him in HCP No.409/2018. The said detention order was quashed vide judgement dated 30.06.2019. However, the detaining authority again after a gap of more than five years has passed the impugned detention order on the same and similar grounds in which the detenu was earlier detained. It is stated that detenu is neither involved in any fresh FIR nor any fresh prejudicial activity, as such, impugned detention order is in violation of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India deserves to the quashed. Further, the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite, non-existent on which no prudent man can make an effective representation against such allegations. It is further contended that in year 2018 detenu had applied for bail in case FIR No. 91/2018 and the Court of competent jurisdiction granted the bail to detenu on 15.10.2018. It is being also stated that detaining authority has neither made any mention about grant of bail in connection with case FIR no.91/2018 nor has even whispered about issuance of earlier detention order which was subsequently quashed by this Court, which reflects non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. On this ground, the detention order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Reference in this regard is being made by counsel for AIR 1987 SC 137 titled Ananat Sakha Ram Vs. State of Maharashtra. 4. Leaned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the material relied upon in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority including copies of FIR Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr. PC and 164 Cr.PC and Seizure Memo have not been furnished to the detenu to enable him to make effective representation against his detention, inasmuch as the last alleged activity against the detenu is of year 2018 and the detention has been passed in the year 2024 on the basis of the past alleged activity, as such there is delay of more than five years in passing the 3 detention order and the last alleged activity and the detaining authority has not tendered any reasonable explanation for the same . 5. This Court, in earlier petition, viz. HCP No. 409/2018 had quashed detention order bearing no. 32/DMP/PSA/24 dated 09.09.2024, while dealing with grounds of detention made use of in support of the said detention order. The same grounds could not have been relied upon for making a fresh detention order. The authoritative judicial pronouncements on the subject are that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention, there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent detention order. When a detention order is quashed by the Court, issuing a high prerogative writ, like habeas corpus or certiorari, the grounds of said detention order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with fresh grounds of detention for drawing requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh detention order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing a rule, it nullifies the entire order. It is, thus, clear that an order of detention cannot be made after considering previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the Court, and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while forming subjective satisfaction by detaining authority in making a detention order, the order of detention will be vitiated. It is of no consequence if further fresh facts, disclosed in the grounds of impugned detention order, have been considered. Reference in this regard is made to Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N. L. Kalna and others, AIR 1989 SC 1234 and Ramesh v. State of GujaratAIR 1989 SC 1881. Detention order, impugned herein, is, thus, liable to be quashed as the grounds of detention, made use of by respondent no.2 while passing earlier detention order, subsequently quashed by this Court, have been pressed into service while passing impugned detention order. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has rightly stated that the detaining authority has not followed the Constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards as envisaged under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution read with Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The grounds of detention are vague and non-existent in the eye of law. His further contention is that there is no nexus, proximate and live link between the allegations levelled in the grounds of detention as the last activity referred to and attributed to 4 detenu is of the year 2018, and that imminent threat to the security of the State could not, thus, be deduced possible and preventive detention of the detenu necessitated. 7. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person requiring to pass a detention order is proximate to time when the order is made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Nonetheless, when there is an undue and long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of the detention order, the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the casual connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case. Certainly, in the present case, there is no cogent explanation coming to fore from perusal of the grounds of detention with reference to the live-link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of the detention and resultantly the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. In this regard reference is made to the law laid down in T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1989) 4 SCC 741 and Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others (2006) 4 SCC 796]. 8. For the reasons discussed above, the petition is disposed of and detention Order no. 32/DMP/PSA/24 dated 09.09.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama is quashed. Respondents, including Superintendent Jail concerned, are directed to release the detenu forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. Disposed of. 9. Registry to return detention record to learned counsel for respondents. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 21.11.2025 Qazi Amjad, JR/Secy Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. QAZI AMJAD YOUSUF I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.11.2025 14:54