S. No. 18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP 124/2023 MUDASIR AHMAD BHAT …Petitioner Through: Mr. SHUJA UL HAQ, Advocate. Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. BISMA RASHID CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 18.09.2025 1. The petitioner in the instant filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the detention order No. 52/DMP/PSA/23 dated 9.10.2023 (for short “Impugned order”), passed by respondent 2 herein (for short “Detaining Authority”) whereunder the petitioner has been detained under and in terms of the provisions and Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978. 2. The petitioner has thrown challenge to the impugned order on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Reply affidavit has been filed by respondents to the petition wherein the petition has been opposed on the premise that the petitioner came to the detained under preventive detention in terms of impugned order after complying all the statutory requirements and fulfilling the Constitutional guarantees and that the detention order came to be passed by the Detaining Authority only after deriving subjective satisfaction while stating further that upon passing of the impugned order, the petitioner came to be furnished well within statutory period grounds of detention, order of detention as well as the entire material relied by the Detaining Authority and was also explained the contents thereof in the language which he fully understood, in lieu whereof the petitioner subscribed his signature on the execution report and that the petitioner was also informed about his right of making a representation against his detention to the Detaining Authority or to the Government. It is lastly stated that since the activities of the petitioner were found to be prejudicial to the security of the State, on the basis of dossier and supported by relevant material submitted to the Detaining Authority, whereafter, the Detaining Authority after examining the said material found that the preventive detention of the petitioner warranted. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Notwithstanding multiple grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner against the impugned order, the counsel for the petitioner, however, would confine the challenge firstly to the ground that though the petitioner was found by the respondents involved in FIR No. 21/2022, registered by Police Station, Tral, for offences under Section 13, 17, 18, 23 and 39 of UAPA Act read with Section 7/25 Indian Arms Act, in FIR, the said petitioner however, came to be granted bail by the court of Special Judge (Designated) Under NIA Act, Pulwama, on 11th July 2023, subject to various terms and conditions including the one that any breach of the conditions by the petitioner herein shall warrant cancellation of the bail, if such breach is reported to the court by the Investigating Officer through prosecution and that since in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has alleged that the petitioner after release on bail indulged in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State, the respondents instead of seeking cancellation of the said bail took recourse to the provisions of the preventive law as a shortcut measure which is not countenanced by law. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that a detailed representation was submitted by him through his brother against the order of detention to the Government, however, the said representation was neither considered or any decision thereof was conveyed to the petitioner, thus, the respondents violated the Constitutional guarantee, enshrined under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution in this regard. 5. On the contrary the counsel for the respondents while opposing the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the reply filed in opposition to the petition and would insist for dismissal of the petition. 6. Insofar as the aforesaid first plea of the counsel of the petitioner is concerned, admittedly, record reveals that the petitioner have had been found involved in FIR No. 21/2022 (supra) and stands bailed out there in the said FIR on 11th July 2023, subject to multiple conditions imposed by the court while granting the said bail including the condition that if there is breach of any condition subject to which the bail stands granted, the grant of such bail shall warrant cancellation if the same is reported to the court by the Investigating Officer or the prosecution. A bare perusal of the detention record reveal that the respondents including the detaining authority has specifically alleged that the petitioner after release on bail continued indulged in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State and did not mend his way necessitating his detention under preventive law. Nothing is forthcoming from the record as to what prevented the respondents from seeking cancellation of the said bail by the respondents in the event the petitioner have had found indulged in the alleged prejudicial activities after the release on bail. Seemingly the respondents have taken recourse detention of the petitioner under preventive law which under these circumstances cannot be said to be sustainable in law. 7. Insofar as the aforesaid next plea urged by the counsel for the petitioner qua the submission of representation against his detention is concerned, the respondents in the reply affidavit have specifically denied to have received any such representation, however, perusal of the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents belies the aforesaid stand of the respondents, in that, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Home Department, has vide letter dated 18th October, 2023 addressed to Special DG of Police CID Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar, has stated that the representation for revocation of detention has been preferred by the family members of the petitioner and comments in this regard have had been sought from the Special DG of Police CID, Jammu and Kashmir, and further, perusal of the detention record would show that a communication has been addressed by Deputy Legal Remembrance, Home Department to the District Magistrate, Pulwama, respondent 2 herein, on 11th January, 2024 in regard to the disposal of the representation of the petitioner conveying that the said representation has been considered and found without any merit. In view of the aforesaid factual position obtaining in the matter, it cannot, but can be said that the respondents have breached the constitutional guarantee enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution in the matter in that, firstly the respondents have denied in the reply affidavit to have received any representation and secondly in the detention record the said representation is stated to have been rejected without having communicated the said rejection to the petitioner. 8. For aforesaid reasons the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and impugned order of detention bearing No. 52/DMP/PSA/23 dated 09.10.2023 is quashed with a direction to the respondents including the concerned jail authority to release the petitioner from the preventive detention unless the petitioner is required in any other case. 10. The detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents is returned to the counsel for the respondents in open Court. 11. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 18.09.2025 “opinder”