HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 121/2025 Reserved on: 06.11.2025 Pronounced on: 21.11.2025 Hilal Ahmad Mir Aged 25 Years, S/o Mohammad Hamza Mir R/o Batpora Brath Kallan Sopore, Tehsil Zaingeer, District Baramulla. ……. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. B.A.Tak, Advocate Versus 1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/ Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Baramulla 3. Superintendent of Police, Sopore ...…Respondent(s) Through: Mr. H. Aman Ali, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Impugned in this petition is Order no.05/DMB/PSA of 2025 dated 28.04.2025, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla – respondent no. 2 (for short “detaining authority”) placing the detenu namely Hilal Ahmad Mir S/o Mohammad Hamza Mir R/o Batpora Brath Kallan Sopore, Tehsil Zaingeer, District Baramulla (for brevity “detenu”) under preventive detention and directing his lodgement in District Jail, Udhampur, on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. Respondents have filed Reply Affidavit in opposition to the petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have perused the detention record produced by learned counsel for respondents and considered the matter. 4. The case set up by petitioner is that detenu was way back in the year 2019 detained vide Order No.92/DMB/PSA of 2020 dated 08.05.2020 on the basis of his alleged involvement in FIR Nos.266/2019 & 125/2020 registered in Police Station, Sopore, which was challenged in a writ petition, being WP(Crl) No.134/2020. The said detention order was quashed by virtue of a judgement dated 17.03.2022. It is stated that in the month of April, 2025, the detenu was again arrested by Police Station, Sopore, wherefrom he was shifted to District Jail, Udhampur, to be detained under preventive detention in terms of impugned order of detention on similar set of allegations which contained in earlier detention order. It is stated that detenu is neither involved in any fresh FIR nor in any fresh prejudicial activity, as such, impugned detention order is in violation of Article 2 HCP No. 121/2025 22(5) of Constitution of India and 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. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has also made a submission that on the set of allegations and grounds those made use of by detaining authority in earlier detention order, have again been relied upon by detaining authority to issue impugned order of detention. It is also averred by him that grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflects and shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority and as a consequence of which impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents insists that detention order has been passed on subjective satisfaction by detaining authority and detention order is in accordance with law and there is no violation or infringement of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Hence, he pleads that petition be dismissed. 7. Perusal of the file reveals that earlier, detenu was placed under preventive detention in terms of Order no.92/DMB/PSA of 2020 dated 08.05.2020, passed by respondent no.2, in which on its quashment, detenu was released. Further perusal of impugned detention order and earlier detention order would unambiguously show that detaining authority has copied earlier detention order in verbatim, which reflects total non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. Such a practice in law is impermissible and, thus, vitiates impugned order of detention. 8. The law in this regard is well settled. If an order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of order of detention, there must be fresh facts to pass 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 3 HCP No. 121/2025 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. My view is fortified by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chhagan Bagwan Kahar v. N.L. Kalna,and others, AIR 1989 SC 1234; Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan v. The Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and another, AIR 1989 SC 1812; and Ramesh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1881. In such circumstances, impugned detention order is liable to be quashed as grounds of detention made use of by respondent no.2 while passing earlier detention order, subsequently quashed by this Court, have again been pressed into service while passing impugned detention order. The impugned order of detention is, therefore, unsustainable in law on this ground alone. Although other grounds have been raised by learned counsel for petitioner vis-à-vis impugned order of detention, yet those need not be elaborated in view of above discussion. 9. In view of above, the petition in hand is disposed of and detention Order no.05/DMB/PSA of 2025 dated 28.04.2025, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla is quashed. Respondents are directed to release the detenu forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. Disposed of. 10. Registry to return detention record to learned counsel for respondents. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 21.11.2025 (Qazi Amjad, Jt.Reg./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