HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 384/2024 Reserved on: 08.11.2025 Pronounced on : 16.12.2025 Uploaded on: 17.12.2025 Showkat Ahmad Khan, aged 35 years S/o Mohammad Sultan Khan R/o Naina Tehsil Litter District Pulwama Kashmir through his father ……. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Usman Gani, Advocate Versus 1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary, Home Department , J&K Govt. Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Pulesms 3. Superintendent of Police Central Jail Kotbhalwal, Jammu .…Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqub, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Impugned in this petition is Order no.47/DMP/PSA/24 dated 12.11.2024 (impugned detention order) passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama – respondent no. 2 (for short „detaining authority‟) placing the detenu namely Showkat Ahmad Khan S/o Mohd Sultan Khan R/o Naina Tehsil , Litter District Pulwama (for brevity „detenu‟) under preventive detention and directing his lodgement in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, 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, perused the detention record made available by learned counsel for respondents and considered the matter. 4. The case set up by petitioner is that the detenu way back in the year 2008 was falsely implicated in FIR No. 308/2008 in which the detenu was bailed out on 26.12.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate Pulwama, however, as soon as the detenu was released, he vide detention order 2 HCP No. 384/2024 No.28/DMP/PSA/2009 dated 20.01.2009 was detained under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act which came to be challenged in a writ petition, diarised and registered as HCP No. 61/2009. The said detention order was quashed vide judgement dated 13.08.2009. It is stated that the detaining authority in the grounds of detention has alleged that the detenu is involved in FIR No.54/2014 for the offence U/S 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station, Tral whereas the detenu has never been involved in such FIR. The said FIR was registered against some other person, inasmuch as the brown sugar like contraband was recovered from one Harjinder Singh as mentioned in the grounds of detention for which case FIR No. 54/2014 for the offence U/S 8/21 in Police Station Tral was registered against him but the detaining authority has failed to substantiate the claim that if the arrest of the accused Harjinder Singh took place on 06.05.2024 how the said FIR was lodged in the year 2014 which is a glaring example of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu was detained in case FIR No. 54/2024 for the offence under section 8/21, Police Station, Tral, in which the detenu was also bailed out in terms of order dated 05.11.2024 by the Special NDPS Court, Pulwama. 6. It is being also stated that detaining authority has neither made any mention in the dossier nor in the grounds of detention about the grant of bail in connection with case FIR no.54/2024, which reflects non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. On this ground, it is stated that the detention order is bad in law and deserves to be 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. 7. 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. 3 HCP No. 384/2024 8. The ground taken by the learned counsel for the detenu is that bail granted to him has not been mentioned in grounds of detention and the same has force in law. It is seen that the detenu has been granted bail by the Court of Special NDPS, Pulwama, vide order dated 05.11.2024, in FIR no.54/2024, registered with Police Station, Tral. This fact is not coming forth from perusal of grounds of detention as well as the record made available by the respondents. Non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention, exhibits non-application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority. This also reflects that detaining authority has not meticulously examined the material record available before him while passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable. 9. Similar issue has been dealt by the Apex Court in case of “Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another” reported in AIR 1987 SC 137, and has held in paragraph 8 as under:- “We hold that there was clear non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority about the fact that the petitioner was granted bail when the order of detention was passed. In the result we set aside the judgement of the Bombay High Court under appeal, quash the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be released forthwith……” 10. The law on the subject is trite. If the detaining authority is apprehensive that the detenu has been released on bail and he may again carry on his criminal activities, then in such situation, the detaining authority should oppose the bail application and, in the event bail is granted, the authority should challenge such a bail order in the higher forum. Merely on the ground that an accused in detention is likely to get bail, an order of preventive detention should not ordinarily be passed. In this regard, Para 24 of judgement delivered in Saima Aruna v. State of Telangana and another, AIR 2017 SC 2662, becomes imperative which reads as under: “24. There is another reason why the detention order is unjustified. It was passed when the accused was in jail in Crime No.221 of 2016. His custody in jail for the said offence was converted into custody under the impugned detention order. The incident involved in this offence is sometime in the year 2002-2003. The detenu could not have been detained preventively by taking this stale incident into account, more so when he was in jail. In 4 HCP No. 384/2024 Ramesh Yadav V. District Magistrate, Etah and Ors., this court observed as follows: “6. On a reading of the grounds, particularly the paragraph which we have extracted above, it is clear that the order of detention was passed as the detaining authority was apprehensive that in case the detenu was released on bail he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area. If the apprehension of the detaining authority was true, the bail application had to be opposed and in case bail was granted, challenge against that order in the higher forum had to be raised. Merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an undertrial prisoner was likely to get bail an order of detention under the Nation Security Act should not ordinarily be passed.” 11. In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and detention Order bearing no. 47/DMP/PSA/24 dated 12.11.2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama against Showkat Ahmad Khan S/o Mohd Sultan Khan R/o Naina Tehsil, Litter District Pulwama is quashed with a direction to the respondents to release the detenu forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case. 12. Disposed of. 13. Registry to return detention record to learned counsel for respondents. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 16.12.2025 (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 18.12.2025 10:59