HCP No.339/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 18.12.2025 Pronounced on:29.12.2025 Uploaded on: 29.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full HCP No.339/2024 SAMIULLAH DAR ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S) Through: - Mr. N. A. Tabasum, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Furqan Yaqub Sofi, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.33/DMP/PSA/24 dated 09.09.2024, issued by respondent No.2. In terms of the aforesaid order, Sami Ullah Dar, (<the detenue=) has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. 2) The petitioner has contended that the grounds of detention are false, frivolous, fictitious and remote in time and the same are copy of the dossier only with difference of some words here and there and the detaining authority has acted like a rubber stamp. It HCP No.339/2024 has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague and couched in a technical language. It has been further contended that the safeguards provided under law have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that there is total non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order and that the representation submitted by the petitioner against his detention has not been considered. 3) The respondents have filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the state. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him and that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. HCP No.339/2024 5) Although the petitioner has raised a number of grounds for impugning the detention order, yet during the course of arguments, he has laid much emphasis on the following grounds: (i) That the petitioner has been detained on the basis of stale grounds having no proximate link with the impugned order of detention. (ii) That whole of the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated has not been supplied to the petitioner thereby violating his right to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. (iii) That the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been decided by the Government. (iv) That the petitioner was detained for the purpose of holding elections in the year 2024 and the said purpose has been achieved now and thus there is no need to keep him in preventive detention. 6) So far as the first ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, in this regard if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it is clearly stated that after the release of the petitioner from custody in connection with FIR No.90/2018 of Police Station, Kralgund, he continued to carry out his subversive activities. It has been indicated that the petitioner kept on working for terrorists of LeT HCP No.339/2024 and JeM. It is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that because of these activities, the petitioner was bound down by the orders of the Executive Magistrate, 1st Clas, Awantipora, in terms of Section 107 Cr. P. C read with Section 151 of Cr. P. C on 25.04.2024 and 20.08.2024 but inspite of this, he did not shun his undesirable activities, meaning thereby that he violated the bonds executed by him before the Executive Magistrate, 1st Class, Awantipora. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not found involved in any fresh activity after his release in FIR NO.90/2018. The fresh activities of the petitioner pertain to the period April, 2024 and August, 2024, which are quite proximate to the date of impugned order of detention. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any merit. 7) Regarding supply of material to the petitioner, the detention record reveals that the petitioner has been provided total 28 leaves comprising copies of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), dossier of detention (05 leaves), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related documents (19 leaves). He has also been provided Urdu version of the grounds of detention and Urdu version of police dossier. A certificate to this effect is available in the detention record which has been executed by the Executing Officer, ASI Abdul Majeed. Thus, whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has been furnished to the petitioner by the detaining HCP No.339/2024 authority. The contention of the learned counsel in this regard is contrary to the detention record. 8) Next it has been contended that the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the Government. As per the detention record, the representation filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate has been rejected by the said authority and the same has been conveyed to the petitioner. Besides this, the representation made by the petitioner to the Government has been placed before the Advisory Board and the same has been rejected by the Board which is apparent from its recommendations dated 14.10.2024. The result of the consideration has also been conveyed to the petitioner in terms of communication dated 18.10.2024. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is without any merit. 9) Lastly, it has been contended that the petitioner was detained in view of the elections of 2024 and because the said elections are now over, there is no need to keep him in preventive detention. 10) It is true that one of the factors which persuaded the detaining authority to detain the petitioner at the relevant time was the Assembly elections of 2024 but that was not the only factor which weighed with the detaining authority. A look at the grounds of detention would reveal that the detaining authority has, while passing the impugned order of detention, factored in the past conduct of the petitioner and his conduct of violating the bonds HCP No.339/2024 executed by him before the Executive Magistrate. The propensity of the petitioner to indulge in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State prompted the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. It is trite law that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not subject to judicial review. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is without any substance. 11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 12) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 29.12.2025 <Bhat Altaf-Secy= Whether the Judgement is speaking: Yes Whether the Judgement is reportable: Yes/No