HCP No. 295/2024. Serial No.09 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 295/2024 MohdIllyas Sheikh S/oGhulam Hassan Sheikh R/o Rampora Tehsil, Qaimoh, District, Kulgam. Through his father Ghulam Hassan Sheikh. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Asif Nabi, Advocate. V/s 1.Union Territory of J&K, through, Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. District Magistrate, Kulgam. 3. Senior Superintendent of PoliceKulgam. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 25.09.2025 1. The petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionfor quashing detention Order No.16/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 27.07.2024 (for short “Impugned order”), passed by the District Magistrate, Kulgam-respondent 2 herein (for short “the Detaining Authority”)whereunder thepetitioner,has been detained by the Detaining Authority under the Provisions of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The impugned order is being challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds urged in the instant petition. HCP No. 295/2024. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondentsto the petition wherein the petition is being opposed,inter alia,on the premise that while examining the dossier and the material carefully, the Detaining Authority after proper application of mind became satisfied that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of the State and that the preventive detention ofthe petitioner is necessitated, as such, in terms of the order under challenge, ordered the detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. It is being further stated that the detenue has been nurturing secessionist ideology and has been involved in motivating other to follow the suit and consequently on the cumulative consideration of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority derived its subjective satisfaction to place the petitioner under preventive detention. It has been further stated that pursuant to the order of detention, the warrant of detention order under challenge was executed against the petitioner through ASI Noor Mohammad, 110/IRP 16th Bn. ARP-873124 of Police Station Qaimoh, Kulgam on 07.08.2024, and that the contents of the warrant of detention was explained to him which he fully understood and also came to be handed over the order of detention, notice of detention inasmuch as, grounds of detention against proper receipt, besides informing him that that can make a representation against his detention to the Government as also the Detaining Authority. It is next stated that the Government after examining the detention order and the material placed before it approved the same and that the HCP No. 295/2024. Page 3 of 7 Advisory Board as well examined the detention case of the petitioner and opined that there is sufficient cause of detaining the petitioner, whereupon the detention order was confirmed by the Government. Further the grounds of challenge urged in the petition by the petitioner are as well controverted in the reply filed to the petition on the basis of position of law laid down in various judgments of this Court and the Apex Court referred in the reply affidavit. It is lastly stated in the reply affidavit that the detention of the petitioner was ordered and carried out by the Detaining Authority in a fair, just and reasonable manner and that the order of detention does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Notwithstanding multiple grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner against the impugned order in the petition, the counsel for the petitioner would confine the challenge alone to the following grounds:- (i) That the grounds of detention were framed by the sponsoring agency/S.P concerned and not by the Detaining Authority. (ii) That the petitioner was not supplied and furnished the entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority for detaining the petitioner. (iii) That the Detaining Authority did not derive any subjective satisfaction while detaining the petitioner. (iv) That the grounds of detention are vague and could not have been relied upon by the Detaining Authority for detaining the petitioner. 5. Insofar as the aforesaid first ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that the Detaining Authority in HCP No. 295/2024. the opening words of the order of detention has mentioned that „on the basis of the grounds of detention placed before me by the Superintendant of Police, Kulgam vide his No. Legal/PSA Cell/2024/342-45 dated 06.07.2024, I am satisfied that with a view of prevent Mohd Illyas Sheikh from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State it is necessary to do so” However, perusal of the detention record produced by counsel for the respondents would tend to show that no such grounds of detention have been furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Kulgam to the Detaining Authority, instead a dossier under the aforesaid covering letter No. PSA Cell/2024/324-45 dated 6th July, 2024, stands furnished to the Detaining Authority along with FIR copies in respect of the petitioner with a request for detaining the petitioner. Further, perusal of the grounds of detention available on the detention record also signifies that in fact the grounds of detention seemingly have been drawn and framed by the District Magistrate and not by the Superintendant of Police, Kulgam. Under these circumstances, it cannot, but be said, that the Detaining Authority has mistakenly mentioned that the grounds of detention were placed before him by the Superintendant of Police, Kulgam. The said error, therefore, cannot thus said to be fatal to the order of detention, but merely a mistake committed by the Detaining Authority in the order of detention. 6. Insofar as the aforesaid next ground urged by the counsel for thepetitioner is concerned, a closer perusal of the detention record would reveal that the petitioner has been furnished the copy of detention order, HCP No. 295/2024. Page 5 of 7 grounds of detention, copies of FIRs as also the warrant of detention. The said fact is evidenced by copy of execution report available on the record which bears the signature of the petitioner as well signifying the receipt of the same. Besides the execution report as well also suggests that the grounds and order of detention stand read over and explained to the petitioner in Urdu/Kashmiri language and also stand informed that he can make a representation against his detention if he so desire. Thus, in this view of the matter, the plea of the counsel for the petitioner in this regard is found to be factually incorrect. 7. Insofar as the aforesaid next ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a deeper examination of the record available on the file inasmuch as, the detention record produced by counsel for the respondents would tend to show that the Detaining Authority seemingly has been alive to the fact that the petitioner have had been previously involved in multiple criminal cases referred in the grounds of detention and had also not been oblivious to the fact that in the said criminal cases, the petitioner had been bailed out and that despite being bailed out in the said criminal cases, the petitioner continued to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State and has seemingly after deriving subjective satisfaction based upon the material furnished to it by the police agency opined and concluded that the preventive detention of the petitioner is warranted. Thus, in this view of the matter, the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that the Detaining Authority ordered the detention of the petitioner without deriving the subjective satisfaction cannot but said to be a figment of imagination. Besides, it is not open this HCP No. 295/2024. Page 6 of 7 Court to undertake an exercise for evaluating the said subjective satisfaction in view of the settled position of law laid down in case titled as“State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC 157,”wherein it has been inter-alia held that the looking into subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is extremely limited and a Court while examining a case of preventive detention would not act as a Court of appeal and find fault such subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority while detaining a person. 8. 8. Insofar as the aforesaid last plea raised by counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention are vagueis concerned, a meticulous examination of the record available on the file as well as the detention record nullifies the said plea, in that, the grounds of detention seemingly inexplicit terms refer to the involvement of the petitioner in multiple criminal cases, his links with terrorists as well as his activities noticed by the Detaining Authority upon the material furnished by the police constituting being prejudicial to the security of the State. Thus, it cannot by any standards be said that the grounds of detention are vague. 9. It is significant to mention here that essential concept of preventive detention is that detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done, but to prevent him from doing it and its basis is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of detenue acting in a manner similar to his past acts, and preventing him by detention from so doing and that preventive detention, an anticipatory measure, is resorted to when the executive 6 is convinced that such detention is necessary to prevent the person detained from acting in a manner HCP No. 295/2024. Page 7 of 7 prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law and that in preventive detention no offence is proved, and justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and that the order of detention is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct in the light of surrounding circumstances and that the power of preventive detention is exercised in reasonable anticipation and it may or may not relate to an offence and also does not overlap with the prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be, or may have been, launched and that an order of preventive detention can be made before or during prosecution, with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal and that the pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention so also an order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution. 10. Viewed thus,for what has been considered, analyzed and observed hereinabove, the petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. The detention record produced by counsel for the respondents for perusal of the Courtis returned back to him in the open Court. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 25.09.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No.