1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 357/2024 Reserved on: 30.10.2025 Pronounced on: 21 .11.2025 Manzoor Ahmad Nanda, aged 32 Years S/o Gh. Mohammad Nanda R/o C.B. Nath Tehsil Rajpora, District Pulwama …….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mubashir Mushtaq, Advocate & Mr. Burhan ud din Bashir, 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, Pulwama …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqoub, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Through the medium of this writ petition, Order No. 41/DMP/PSA/24 dated 13.09.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama, whereby detenu, namely, Manzoor Ahmad Nanda S/o Gh. Mohammad Nanda R/o C.B. Nath Tehsil Rajpora, 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 the State, is sought to be quashed and the detenu set at liberty on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. The main grounds on which the detention is sought to be quashed are that the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite, cryptic , inasmuch as the detaining authority has not attributed any specific allegation against the detenu; that the detaining authority has not furnished the material including copy of the FIR Nos.182/2007, 72/2007, 35/2007, 23/2010 & 116/2011, Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr. PC, relied upon by it, to detenu to enable him to make an effective representation by giving his version of facts attributed to him and make an attempt to dispel the apprehensions nurtured by detaining authority concerning involvement of 2 detenu in alleged activities; that grounds of detention do not give details or particulars of terrorists to whom detenu is alleged to have met or of those who are alleged to have been given assistance by the detenu, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflects and shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. It is being also stated that there is no live link between the last activity and the impugned order of detention inasmuch as FIR Nos.182/2007, 72/2007, 35/2007, 23/2010 & 116/2011, have been taken into account by detaining authority while passing order impugned, unmindful of the fact that detenu has been bailed out in the said FIRs and there have been no further activities alleged against detenu. 3. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of the State. 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. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents. 5. Taking into account the rival contentions of parties and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it would be relevant to go through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents. The detention record, inter alia, contains “Execution Report” and “Receipt of detention Papers”. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant portion of “Execution Report” hereunder: “The detention order (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leafs), Dossier (02 leafs) and other related documents (07 leafs), (Total 12 Leafs) have been handed over to the above said detenu…..” 6. It would also be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of “Receipt of Grounds of Detention” herein: 3 “Received detention order (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), Dossier (02 leaves) and other related documents (07 leaves), (Total 12 Leaves)..….” Thus, it is unambiguously clear and evident from perusal of Execution Report and Receipt of grounds of detention that only twelve leaves have been given to detenu. 7. Perusal of impugned detention order reveals that on the basis of dossier placed before detaining authority by Senior Superintendent of Police, Pulwama, vide no. CS/PSA/DPO/24/33-36 dated 10.09.2024, detaining authority was satisfied that with a view to prevent detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it was necessary to detain him under necessary provisions of law. So, it is on the basis of dossier and other connected material/documents that impugned detention order has been passed by detaining authority. The grounds of detention, when looked into, gives reference to various alleged activities of detenu that appears to have weighed with detaining authority, while making detention order. The detention record, as noted above, does not indicate that copies of FIRs and other connected material was ever supplied to detenu, on the basis whereof impugned detention order has been passed. The aforesaid material, thus, assumes importance in the facts and circumstances of the case. It needs no emphasis, that detenu cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of his Constitutional and Statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, unless and until the material on which detention order is based, is supplied to him. It is only after detenu has all the said material available that he can make an effort to convince detaining authority and thereafter the Government that their apprehensions vis-à-vis his activities are baseless and misplaced. If detenu is not supplied the material, on which the detention order is based, he will not be in a position to make an effective representation against his detention order. The failure on the part of the detaining authority to supply the material, relied at the time of making the detention order to the detenu, renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable. In this regard I may draw support from the law laid down in the cases of Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. v. Government of Karnataka, AIR 4 2009 SC 2184; Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari, 2008, Cr. L. J. 4567; Dhannajoy Dass v. District Magistrate, AIR, 1982 SC 1315; Sofia Gulam Mohd Bham v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1999 SC 3051; and Syed Aasiya Indrabi v. State of J&K & ors, 2009 (I) S.L.J 219. 8. The Supreme Court in Abdul Latief Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha, 1987 (2) SCC 22 has held that it is only the procedural requirements, which are the only safeguards available to the detenu, that is to be followed and complied with as the Court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In the present case, the procedural requirements, as discussed above, have not been followed and complied by the respondents in letter and spirit and resultantly, the impugned detention needs to be quashed. 9. 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]. 10. The law on the subject is settled. If detaining authority is apprehensive that in case detenu is released on bail he may again carry on his criminal activities, then in such situation, the authority should oppose the bail application and, in the event, bail is granted, the authority should challenge 5 such a bail order in the higher forum and that merely on the ground that an accused in detention is likely to get bail, an order of preventive detention should not ordinarily be passed. Para 24 of judgement passed in Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana and another, AIR 2017 SC 2662, 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 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. There is force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that there is no live link between the last activity and the impugned order of detention inasmuch as FIR Nos.182/2007, 72/2007, 35/2007, 23/2010 & 116/2011, have been taken into account by detaining authority while passing order impugned, unmindful of the fact that detenu has been bailed out in the said FIRs and there have been no further activities alleged against detenu. Resultantly, impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 12. Based on the above discussion, the petition is disposed of and Detention Order no. 41/DMP/PSA/24 dated 13.09.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama against the detenu, is quashed. As a corollary, respondents are directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith provided he is not required in any other case. Disposed of. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 21.11.2025 (Qazi Amjad , Jt Reg. /Secy.) Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No QAZI AMJAD YOUSUF I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.11.2025 14:54