HCP No.92/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 11.12.2025 Pronounced on:26.12.2025 Uploaded on: 26 .12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full HCP No.92/2024 SHEIKH ABDUL ROUB ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT(S) Through: - Mr. Bilal Ahmad Khan, Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has assailed detention order bearing No.02/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 07.03.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Kulgam, whereby Sheikh Abdul Roub (the detenue) has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State. 2) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the impugned detention order has been challenged by the petitioner contending that the impugned detention order has been passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non- existent and stale on which no prudent man can make a HCP No.92/2024 representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner. 3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the activities of the detenue have been found prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It has been further contended 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 also averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the 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. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the ground that the detenue has not been provided whole of the material forming basis HCP No.92/2024 of the grounds of detention, which prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention. 6) A perusal of the detention record reveals that the petitioner has received four leaves comprising PSA warrant (01 leaf), notice (01 leaf) and grounds of detention (02 leaves). The grounds of detention bear reference to FIR No.24/2021 registered with P/S D. H. Pora. It was incumbent upon the respondents to furnish not only copy of the FIR but also the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation of the said FIR and other material on the basis of which petitioner’s involvement therein is shown, which has not been done. Even the copy of the dossier has not been supplied to the petitioner. Thus, contention of the petitioner that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority, while framing the grounds of detention, has not been supplied to him, appears to be well-founded. Obviously, the petitioner has been hampered by non-supply of these vital documents in making an effective representation before the Advisory Board, as a result whereof his case has been considered by the Advisory Board in the absence of his representation, as is clear from the detention record. Thus, vital safeguards against arbitrary use of law of preventive detention have been observed in breach by the respondents in this case rendering the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law. 7) It needs no emphasis that the detenue cannot be expected to make an effective and purposeful representation which is his constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the HCP No.92/2024 Constitution of India, unless and until the material, on which the detention is based, is supplied to the detenue. The failure on the part of detaining authority to supply the material renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable in law. While holding so, I am fortified by the judgments rendered in Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 1999 SC 3051) Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. State of Delhi, AIR 1953 SC 318, Shalini Soni v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SC 544, Nazeer Ahmad Sheikh vs. Additional Chief Secretary Home, 1999 SLJ 241, and, Thahira Haris Etc. Etc. V. Government of Karnataka & Ors. (AIR 2009 SC 2184). 8) In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required not required in connection with any other case. 9) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 26 .12.2025 "Bhat Altaf-Secy" Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No