1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 246/2024 Reserved on: 19.09.2025 Pronounced on:15.10.2025 Tahid Ahmad Tarray ……...Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Nusrat Razak, Advocate. Versus Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others. ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Illiyas Nazir Laway, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE J U D G M E N T The instant petition has been filed by Mst. Aisha mother of Tahid Ahmad Parray, S/o Ali Mohammad Tarray R/o Sheetipora, Bijbehara, District Anantnag, for short „detenue‟ thereby seeking quashment of the detention order No. 12/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.04.2024 hereinafter for short to be referred as impugned order, issued by the respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Anantnag, Kashmir, thereby detaining the detenue under the provisions of Section (8) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, on the ground that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of Security of the State and directed to be lodged at Central Jail, Jammu Kothbhalwal. 2 FACTUAL MATRIX 1. The detenue, by the impugned order, has been put under preventive detention by respondent No. 2 for the security of the State. The ground taken in support of such detention by the detaining authority find its origin in FIR No. 219/2022 of Police Station, Anantnag, registered against the detenue for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections 120-B, 130 IPC, & 18, 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, respectively and the detenue is facing trial in the said case before the competent Court of jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 inter alia on the grounds, that the impugned order has been issued without any cause and justification of law; the detenue has been falsely alleged to be working as Over Ground Worker (OGW) for the terrorists of banned terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and the allegations levelled in the grounds of detention are related to the year 2022, till date more than two years have lapsed and the conduct of the detenue has remained sober during the trial of the case; the detaining authority has passed the order of detention with complete non-application of mind as it does not specify as to how the ordinary criminal law could not have been effective against the detenue; the detaining authority has not assigned the compelling reasons for passing the order of detention in respect of the detenue; the allegations levelled in the grounds of detention against the petitioner are vague, irrelevant and non-existent, therefore, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority 3 is not based on proximate or relevant material; the impugned detention order stands vitiated as it is founded upon false and frivolous grounds lacking any real nexus with the detenue; the detenue was involved in case FIR No. 219/2022 on the basis of animosity and ill-will and the detenue is fully cooperating with the police authorities and is presenting himself before the Court of competent jurisdiction; the detention order has been passed without following the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; the detention material relied upon has not been supplied to the detenue in its entirety as he has been provided only a copy of grounds of detention rendering him debilitated to move an effective representation against his detention; the order of detention is based upon the cogent material which could necessitate the passing of the order of detention; the. 3. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing the counter affidavit stating inter-alia therein that; the detenue has been validly and legally detained in terms of the impugned order; the activities of the detenue are highlighted in the grounds of detention which are self-explanatory; the detenue was a well known OGW of LeT and was a close associates of killed terrorist Uzair Khan of LeT outfit; the detenue was providing every support/information to the outfit of LeT terrorists; the detenue has been validly and legally detained in terms of the impugned order; all statutory safeguards have been complied with, the detaining authority has properly applied its mind to the fact of the case as the detenue had been nurturing the secessionist 4 ideology and was motivating others to follow the suit; the grounds of detention are proximate relevant and valid. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the material made available. ANALYSIS: 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken several grounds in support of the petition to challenge and seek quashment of the impugned order primarily being non-furnishing of entire detention material to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation against his detention, the non-consideration of the representation of the detenue and there being no nexus between the alleged activities and the detenue. 6. The detention record made available would indicate that the detenue has been furnished in as many as 23 leaves of detention documents comprising copies of detention order (01 leaf), Notice of detention (01 Leaf), grounds of detention (02 Leaves), Dossier of detention (03 Leaves) Copies of FIR, Statement of Witnesses and other relevant documents (16 Leaves), therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenue was not supplied the entire detention material is belied by the records, therefore, is turned down. 7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non- supply of the detention material to the detenue has prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention, in view of the findings returned in para-6 supra, also looses significance and is accordingly rejected. 5 8. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation filed against the detention of the detenue has not been considered is also of no help to the petitioner as the detention record would show that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and rejected being without merit in terms of communication dated 28.08.2024 issued by Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department addressed to District Magistrate, Anantnag. 9. The submissions made in respect of the involvement of the detenue in a case which is two years older to the date of impugned order does not have much appeal in it as the material placed before the Court does reflect in unambiguous terms the continuous involvement of the detenue in the alleged nefarious activities even after the registration of FIR against his name. The detenue is shown to have disclosed his anti-social activities that he has indulged in, in the year 2023 as well suggesting nothing but his undeterred commitment to the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of security of state. 10. The Apex Court in case titled “Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad” reported as AIR 2019 SC 3428 has held as under: “41. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, in Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and others (2005) 8 SCC 276, it was held as under:- “8. It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent the antisocial and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford 6 protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so………”. 42. Considering the scope of preventive detention and observing that it is aimed to protect the safety and interest of the society, in State of Maharashtra and others v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande (2008) 3 SCC 613, it was held as under:- “36. Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand. Security of State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community, prevention of smuggling and black marketing activities, etc. demand effective safeguards in the larger interests of sustenance of a peaceful democratic way of life. 37. In considering and interpreting preventive detention laws, courts ought to show greatest concern and solitude in upholding and safeguarding the fundamental right of liberty of the citizen, however, without forgetting the historical background in which the necessity— an unhappy necessity—was felt by the makers of the Constitution in incorporating provisions of preventive detention in the Constitution itself. While no doubt it is the duty of the court to safeguard against any encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, at the same time the authorities who have the responsibility to discharge the functions vested in them under the law of the country should not be impeded or interfered with without justification (vide A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271, Bhut Nath Mete v. State of W.B. (1974) 1 SCC 645, State of W.B. v. Ashok Dey (1972) 1 SCC 199 and ADM v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521).” 11. This Court is convinced that the impugned detention order has not been passed mechanically by the respondents but is an outcome of proper application of mind and the material placed before this Court by the 7 respondents does reflect the necessity of invoking the provisions of preventive detention against the detenue. CONCLUSION 12. In view of above the petition being without merit is dismissed and the impugned detention order No. 12/DMA/PSA/DET/2024, dated 20.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 2, is maintained. 13. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents against receipt. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Srinagar 15.10.2025 “Shaista” Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No. Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes Shaista Rashid Shah I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 12.10.2025 17:43