HCP 9/2025 P a g e | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP 9/2025 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Pronounced on:29:08:2025 ZUBAIR RAMZAN GANIE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O MOHAMMAD RAMZAN GANIE, R/O GUND BAGH SEER HAMDAN MATTAN, DISTRICT ANANTNAG THROUGH HIS FATHER MOHAMMAD RAMZAN GANIE AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O GUND BAGH SEER HAMDAN MATTAN, DISTRICT ANANTNAG …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Advocate Vs. 1. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH PRINCIPAL/SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, J & K , GOVERNMENT CIVIL SECRETARIAT, SRINAGAR 2. DIVISIIONAL COMMISSIONER KASHMIR, SRINAGAR 3. SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHADERWAH 4. SR.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTNAG ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, AC vice Mr. Mohsin Ul Showkat Qadri, Sr.AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI,JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. In this petition, petitioner herein has challenged detention order No. DIVCOM-“K”/214/2024 dated 19.12.2024, passed by respondent Noo.2, whereby détenue has been detained on the grounds of being involved in FIR No. 04/2024, registered under sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, at police Station, Mattan. HCP 9/2025 P a g e | 2 2. The detenue through his father has assailed the detention order on the grounds that the same does not reflect that after the detenue was admitted to bail, he continued to indulge in activities prescribed under PITNDPS Act; no Daily Diary Report, discreet surveillance report, or any other material suggestive of the fact that he was continuously indulging in these activities even after having been admitted to bail in the said FIR has not been supplied to the detenue which is mandatorily required to be supplied as a matter of compliance with the constitutional mandate of the Constitution of India; the detention order has been passed in a most mechanical and perfunctory manner, depicting total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the relevant material facts, required in law to be taken into consideration while passing the order of detention; the detenue was granted bail and has consistently adhered to all conditions set forth in the bail granted by the court; nothing in the grounds of detention, disclose or mention any activity answering any of the features of an activity prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory within the meaning and contemplation of section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, warranting in law, the detention of the detenue; is antithetical to the legislative intent and purpose underlying the NDPS Act, has been resorted to attain a collateral purpose being that of defeating the bail granted to the detenue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Krishan Lal v. Union Territory of J&K, 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 2024, as also on the judgment in Abinash HCP 9/2025 P a g e | 3 Kumar v. Union Territory of J&K through Secretary to Government, Department of Home and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 901. 4. Per contra, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the preventive detention is not to punish the detenue for something he has done, but to prevent him from doing it; the basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of likelihood of the detenue acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same; the detenue was apprehended in FIR No. 04/2024, registered under sections 8/20 NDPS Act, at Police Station Mattan and accordingly, Police party and Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Nanil/Seer Hamdan conducted search of his house and 867 bottles of illicit alcohol and 09.120 kgs of charas like substance was recovered from the house along with a car and a bike, the detenue was bailed out by the competent court of law; the order of detention was executed by concerned police on 23.12.2024, the contents of grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language which he understood completely, he was also informed about his right to file a representation to the Government against the detention order; that the Advisor Board examined the case and found sufficient grounds for detention of the detenue, confirmed the detention order on 24.01.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties, considered submissions and produce the material on record. HCP 9/2025 P a g e | 4 7. Petitioner is 26 years of age, has completed his graduation from Government Degree College, Khanawal and thereafter secured admission at Kashmir Law College, Naushera Srinagar for pursuing LLB course, but left his studies midway. As per the respondents he got indulged into a notorious illicit drug peddling. The detenue was released on interim bail on 07.05.2024 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Anantnag till 14.05.2024, the bail order has been annexed with the copy of the petition. As per the respondents, the investigation in FIR No. 04/2024 has been concluded and a charge sheet has been laid before the competent court of law on 09.03.2024. It is further stated that, upon consideration of continuous field reports indicating that the detenue had been discreetly indulging in drug peddling activities in the area, preventive measures were taken to bind down the detenue prior to the issuance of the detention order. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenue was bound down under 107/117 Cr.PC/126 BNSDDR dated 24-11-2024 and after that there is nothing on record to show that detenue violated his bond. There is no fresh activity after DDR dated 24-11-2024 and before passing of the impugned detention order. The detenue was granted interim bail till 14-05-2024, however respondents have not reflected anywhere that the interim bill was ever confirmed or extended by the competent court of law. The respondents have only relied upon the interim bail granted to the petitioner to contend that the ordinary course of law has not proven sufficient to prevent, the individual from indulging into such kind of activities. HCP 9/2025 P a g e | 5 9. The Supreme Court in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, reported as (2023) 9 SCC 587, has held that a detention order cannot be sustained if it is found to be the result of non-application of mind. For ready reference, paragraph 28 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: “(i) the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the exercise of the power not being satisfied; (ii) in reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining authority has applied its mind to all relevant circumstances and the same is not based on material extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute; (iii) power has been exercised for achieving the purpose for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is therefore ultra vires; (iv) the detaining authority has acted independently or under the dictation of another body; (v) the detaining authority, by reason of self-created rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized by the governing statute, has disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each individual case; (vi) the satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on materials which are of rationally probative value, and the detaining authority has given due regard to the matters as per the statutory mandate; (vii) the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him or is based on material which is stale; (viii) the ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction is/are such which an individual, with some degree of rationality and prudence, would consider as connected with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be reached; (ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the opportunity to make a suitable representation; and (x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been strictly adhered to.” HCP 9/2025 P a g e | 6 10.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have failed to place on record the proceedings and outcome of the proceedings initiated under section 107/117 of Cr.PC. He has further stated that DDR dated 24.11.2024 is not only vague but also does not establish any act in which the petitioner has indulged after he was enlarged on bail which necessitated respondents to issue impugned detention order and also deprived him of making an effective representation against the order of detention. 11.It would be apposite to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment rendered in Abhinash Kumar v. Union Territory of J&K and Krishan Lal v. Union Territory of J&K, reported as 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 2024, which read as under: “11 Further, a perusal of the detention record reveals that the respondent No. 2 has relied upon the proceedings initiated against the Detitioner under Section 107/117 of Cr. P.C before Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor on 17 11 2023 In the record, complaint under Section 107/117 Cr PC dated 16 11 2023 is found wherein the allegations against the petitioner were that the petitioner was indulging in the trafficking of drugs. It is not forthcoming from the record as to when the same was filed before the Executive Magistrate 1" Class, Akhnoor, though, in the dossier, it is mentioned that the same was filed before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Akhnoor on 17 11 2023 There is nothing on record as to what was the outcome of the proceedings Initiated under Section 107/117 of Cr P.C It is not forthcoming whether the petitioner was ordered to furnish any security or not. There is proper mechanism in the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the violation of the order in respect of furnishing of security Failure on part of the respondents to place on record the proceedings and outcome of the proceedings initiated under Section 107/117 of Cr PC is fatal. 12. In LPA No. 158/2024, titled 'UT of J&K v. Aftab Hussain Dar decided on 13.08 2024, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: "It is evident that the Detaining Authority has acted as a mouthpiece of the sponsoring agency by ordering the detention of the respondent under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1973. Even if, we condone this un-condonable lapse on the part of the Detaining Authority, still we find that even the proceedings of the Executive Magistrate 1" Class, Rajpora in respect of binding down the respondent were never submitted to the Detaining Authority. The HCP 9/2025 P a g e | 7 consequences for breach of the bond have been provided under the Code but no material was placed before the appellant No. 2 as to whether respondent was proceeded against in terms of the Code or not. How the Detaining Authority derived its subjective satisfaction that the bound down order passed by the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpora under section 107/151 of the Code did not produce the desired results, remains an unsolved mystery even before us. The learned writ court after examining the detention record, has also come to the same conclusion that the Detaining Authority is absolutely silent as to how the bond, if any, executed by the respondent and his surety came to be breached by them, by allegedly re-engaging in the illegal activities so as to warrant issuance of order of detention against him. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the finding returned by the writ court" 13.In view of above, the petition is allowed and the detention order No. DIVCOM-“K”/214/2024 dated 19.12.2024, passed by respondent No.2 whereby the detenue namely, Zubair Ramzan Ganie S/o Mohd Ramzan Ganie R/o Gund Bagh Seer Hamdan Mattan, District Anantnag, has been detained, is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith. 14.Detention record be returned against receipt. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 29-08-2025 Mubashir 1. Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No 2. Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No