, Serial No. 19 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP 147/2023 Zahid Rehman Wagay. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Bushra Zargar, Adv. VERSUS UT of JK and Anr. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE. JUDGMENT(ORAL) 18-09-2025 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has thrown challenge to the order of detention bearing No. 06/DMK/PSA/2023 Dated 01-09-2023 (for short “impugned order”), passed by District Magistrate Kulgam, respondent No. 2 herein (for short “Detaining Authority”) whereby the petitioner- Zahid Rehman Wagay S/O Ab. Rahman Wagay R/o Gassirana Devsar Kulgam District Kulgam has been detained under and in terms of provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Reply affidavit has been filed by the respondents to the petition wherein, the petition is being opposed on the ground that none of the rights of the petitioner be it legal, statutory or fundamental have been violated in the process of detaining the petitioner. It is being further stated that the Detaining Authority while detaining the petitioner has complied with all statutory requirements and fulfilled all requisite constitutional guarantees and that the detention was ordered by the Detaining Authority only after deriving subjective satisfaction in the matter and that the grounds of detention order as well as entire material, relied upon by the Detaining Authority were furnished to the petitioner well within the statutory period and that the contents of the order of detention and the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the petitioner in the language which he fully understood and was also informed about his right of making representation against his detention to the Detaining Authority or the Government in lieu whereof, the petitioner has subscribed his signatures on the execution report. It is further stated that the Advisory Board in terms of its opinion, recommended the confirmation of the detention of the petitioner whereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention. It is reiterated that the order of detention has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1978 and all procedural safeguards under the Act and the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitution were strictly followed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. A bare perusal of the record available on the file in general and the order of detention dated 01-09-2023 in particular tends to show that the Detaining Authority-respondent No. 2 herein has provided therein the said order as under; “whereas, on the basis of grounds of detention placed before me by the Superintendent of Police, Kulgam vide his No. Legal/PSA/2023/11875-78 dated 27-06-2023, I am satisfied that with a view to prevent Zahid Rahman Wagay S/o Ab. Rahman Wagay R/o Gassirana Devsar Kulgam District Kulgam from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of State, it is necessary to do so, now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause(a) of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, I, District Magistrate Kulgam hereby direct that the said Zahid Rahman Wagay S/o Ab. Rahman Wagay R/o Gassirana Devsar District Kulgam be detained under PSA in the interest of security of State and be lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal Jammu”. The aforesaid position emerging from the record would manifestly suggest that the grounds of detention seemingly have been drawn and prepared by the Superintendent of Police Kulgam instead of Detaining Authority thus it cannot, but be said that the Detaining Authority has failed in discharging its statutory obligations, contained in the Act of 1978 whereunder the Detaining Authority alone has to draw and frame the grounds of detention based upon which a person can be detained in terms of an order of detention. Therefore, in view of above, the impugned order owing its origin to the grounds of detention seemingly drawn and framed by Superintendent of Police, Kulgam, would not be legally sustainable. 5. It also emanates from the record in general and the grounds of detention in particular that the petitioner has been detained under preventive detention owing to his involvement in FIR 29/2019 registered with police station Devsar, Kulgam on 16-04-2019 for offences under Sections 17(F), 505 RPC, 132 RP Act, 13 UAP Act. A closer examination of the grounds of detention would show that the Detaining Authority has manifestly detained the petitioner owing to his involvement in the said FIR, in that, a closer examination of the grounds of detention does not suggest anywhere that post involvement of the petitioner in the said FIR or else his release in the said FIR on bail in terms of order dated 15- 08-2019 till the date of passing of the impugned order, the petitioner has been found to be indulged in an activity either prejudicial to public order or security of the state. Admittedly, the proximate and live link is missing between the past conduct of the petitioner and the impugned order of detention. Therefore, under these circumstances the petitioner could not have been detained under preventive detention for his past conduct more so when he had been already released on bail by competent court and when no steps for cancellation of the said bail have had been taken recourse to by the respondents, even if, it is assumed that the petitioner’s post his release on bail had indulged in any activity either prejudicial to public order or security of state. 6. Viewed thus, for aforesaid reasons the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Resultantly, the petition succeeds, as a consequence whereof, the impugned order No. 06/DMK/PSA/2023 Dated 01-09-2023 is quashed with a direction to the respondents including the concerned Jail Authority to release the petitioner from preventive detention unless the petitioner is required in any another case. 7. The detention record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents is returned back in the open Court. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 18-09-2025 Sarvar