HCP 143/2024 Serial No. 16 Regular Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP 143/2024 Reserved on : 09.10.2025 Pronounced on : 16.10.2025 Imran Ahmad Raina, Aged 26 Years S/O Ghulam Hassan Raina R/O Mohammad pora Tazipora, District Kulgam Through his Father Ghulam Hassan Raina, Aged 61 Years …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocate Vs. 1. UT of J&K Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, J&K Govt. Civil Sectt., Srinagar/Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Kulgam. 3. Superintendent of Police, Kulgam ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner Mr. Ghulam Hassan Raina is assailing the order No. 13/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 16.04.2024 (herein after referred to “impugned order”), passed by respondent No. 2 - District Magistrate Kulgam, whereby, Imran Ahmad Raina S/O Ghulam Hassan Raina R/O Mohammad Pora Tazipora District Kulgam (hereinafter for short “detenue”) has been detained under and in terms of the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, for acting in a manner prejudicial to Security of the State and lodged in District Jail, Srinagar. 2. Before the grounds taken in support of the petition are summarized, it would be advantageous to refer to the facts, briefly, in the first instance. HCP 143/2024 Brief Facts: 3. The detenue had been arrested in the year 2022 and subsequently detained under the Public Safety Act in terms of Order dated 09.04.2022, passed by respondent No. 2. The preventive detention of the detenue had been quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.03.2023, passed in WP(Crl) 163/2022 and the detenue was released from custody. The detenue is stated to have been carrying on routine activities as a peaceful citizen, when he was arrested by police station Kulgam, in the second week of April 2024, detained subsequently in terms of the impugned order and lodged in Central Jail Srinagar. 4. The petitioner is assailing the impugned order, inter alia on the grounds that the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue, having fabricated by the police; the impugned order seems to have been passed against the wrong person, as the detenue does not know anyone as alleged in the grounds of detention, neither has he associated himself with any organization as referred therein, nor ever established any contact as alleged in the grounds of detention; the dossier submitted by the respondent No. 3 is unjustified and has no material basis; the last alleged activity attributed to the detenue has taken place in the year 2018 and thereafter no fresh activity has been attributed to the detenue, therefore lacking proximity and are stale; the delay of more than 6 years between the last alleged activity and the order of detention has snapped the proximity; the non-reflection of the fact in the grounds of detention that the previous detention was quashed by this Hon’ble Court has also rendered the impugned order illegal, though a reference of the detention order has been made; the detaining authority has passed a fresh detention order on the same grounds as alleged in the previous detention order, which was quashed by this Court; the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention are vague and bereft of any specific detail, wherein fresh activity has been mentioned after the HCP 143/2024 release from earlier preventive detention; the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, which is the replica of police dossier and has relied on the police dossier; that a representation was submitted to respondent No. 2, however, the same was not considered in due course of law nor the material as requested was furnished to the detenue. 5. 5. The petitioner, while seeking the release of the detenue from preventive custody has sought Two Lakh Rupees from the respondents for detaining the detenue illegally. 6. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed the reply affidavit, stating therein inter alia, that based on the reasonable prognosis of the future behavior, considering the detainee’s past conduct and in light of the surrounding circumstances, the impugned order has been passed; the detenue has been named in several FIRs from the year 2010 to 2018, last being FIR No. 48/2018 at Police Station D.H Pora, wherein the detenue was involved in a grenade attack on 34 RR camp in Nehama on 25.05.2018 and the activities of the detenue have been nefarious throughout the period; the detenue has started to work as an overground worker for militants of the area; the warrant in the above detention order was executed on 18.04.2024, handing over the detenue to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar and the contents of the warrant were read over and explained to the detenue, which he understood fully; the detenue was also informed about the right to make a representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Government against the detention order; the detention order passed against the detenue was also approved by the Government; the grounds of detention are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant with no vagueness or staleness. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made and perused the material made available, including the detention record. HCP 143/2024 8. The admitted position of the case is that the detenue was involved in Case FIR No. 48/2018 of police station D.H Pora, arrested and subsequently detained under preventive detention in terms of order No. 25/DMK/PSA/2022 dated 09.04.2022. The detenue order was later quashed by this Court in terms of order dated 31.03.2023 passed in WP(Crl) 163/2022 and accordingly released thereafter. The specific averment taken in the petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue has been detained again in terms of the impugned order on the same set of facts as were alleged against him in terms of the previous detention order, which has been quashed by this Court. No fresh activity is attributed to him, which could form a ground for his detention afresh. 9. Going by the contents of the reply affidavit and the detention material, relied upon by the detaining authority in detaining the detenue, one could decipher conveniently that the detaining authority has been weighed by the past conduct of the detenue and has, as such passed the impugned order. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely justified in submitting that the detenue is not alleged to have indulged in any fresh activity to constrain the respondents to again press into service the preventive laws against him, so as to deter him from repeating such activities. There is absolutely nothing on record to that extent. Neither do the respondents allege anything like that in their reply affidavit. Having said that the detenue has obviously been detained under preventive detention for his alleged involvement in case FIR No. 48/2018 of police station D.H Pora, for which he has already been detained in preventive detention, which was later quashed by this Court in terms of order dated 31.03.2023 passed in WP(Crl) 163/2022. 11. The respondents are in no way justified in issuing the impugned order against the detenue, while taking into consideration his past conduct. The Apex Court has deprecated such practice of passing the detention orders against an HCP 143/2024 individual based on his past conduct, that too when the detenue had already been detained on the same grounds. It would be profitable to reproduce paragraph 12, in the case titled “Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar Vs. N.L. Kalna & Ors.”, reported as (1989) 2 SCC 318: “It emerges from the above authoritative judicial pronouncements that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. A fortiori when a detention order is quashed by the court issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari the grounds of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule it nullifies the entire order” 12. The respondents having issued the impugned order on the same set of facts, on which the detenue was detained earlier, without attributing anything adverse against the detenue afresh, depicts the complete non-application of mind on the part of respondents. 13. It being so, the petition succeeds and is allowed as such, the impugned order No. 13/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 16.04.2024, passed by respondent No. 2 - District Magistrate Kulgam, by virtue of which the detenue namely Imran Ahmad Raina S/O Ghulam Hassan Raina R/O Mohammad Pora Tazipora District Kulgam, had been detained in preventive detention is quashed and the detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. 14. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for respondents against proper receipt. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 16.10.2025 “Adil Ismail”  Whether the Judgment is Reportable? No.  Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes