Page | 1 HCP 18/2025 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 18/2025 Reserved on : 21.08.2025 Pronounced on : 30.08.2025 Nasir Ahmad Khan, Age 23 Years S/O , Mukhtar Ahmad Khan R/O Zoogu, Tehsil Khansahib, District Budgam …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. S.T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate Versus 1. Union Territory of J&K and Ladakh through Commissioner Secretary Home Civil Secretariat Srinagar/Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Budgam 3. Superintendent District Jail, Baderwah ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy.AG CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 01. By this petition, the petitioner, father of Nasir Ahmad Khan S/o Mukhtar Ahmad Khan, R/O Zoogu, Tehsil Khansahib, District Budgam (hereinafter for short “to be referred as detenu,”) is assailing Order No. DMB/PSA/12 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 (hereinafter for short as “impugned order”), issued by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate Budgam, by virtue of which the detenu has been detained under preventive detention under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act (PSA) from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State on the grounds taken into the petition. 02. Briefly stated, the petitioner states that the detenu was arrested in the year 2024 under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 vide impugned order issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the detenu has been detained under preventive Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Page | 2 HCP 18/2025 detention. The case of the petitioner is that the documents regarding the grounds of detention and connected documents were not provided to the detenu for making an effective representation to the Government and to the Advisory Board and it is a well-settled law that the grounds of detention should be furnished to the detenu for representing him before the Government. 03. According to the petitioner, the District Magistrate Budgam, has not applied his mind, as the detenu was already lodged in District jail Baderwah and if he carried any activity prejudicial to the security of the State, implicitly, he would have acted from District Jail Baderwah, and accordingly detained by District Magistrate, Baderwah and not by District Magistrate, Budgam. 04. The petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that the District Magistrate has not explained in his grounds of detention that if accused was shown in FIR No. 53/2022 under Sections 121, 121-A IPC, 13, 16, 17, 18, 39, 40 of unlawful activity prevention Act, then why he did not wait for the trial to conclude or investigation to get completed because under code of criminal procedure, District Magistrate cannot act on FIR or on 161, 164 Cr. PC statements. 05. The impugned order being an outcome of the grounds of detention is wholly envisaged and unreasonable; that there is no satisfied allegation leveled against the detenu in the grounds of detention that may connect the detenu with the allegations; the detaining authority has not applied its mind and recorded its satisfaction vis-à-vis the allegations leveled against the detenu while passing the impugned order. 06. Per contra, the respondents in their reply affidavit, have stated that the detenu is an OGW of a terrorist organization and working as an active aid of terrorists of TRF outfit in the area for providing all possible shelter/logistic to the terrorist organizations in the area, besides the detenu was involved in raising funds and hatching conspiracy to kill the innocent civilians/police personnel to Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Page | 3 HCP 18/2025 disrupt the prevailing peace in the area, being involved in FIR No. 53/2022 under Sections 121, 121-A IPC, 13, 16, 17, 18, 39, 40 UAP Act Police Station, Sadder, Srinagar and was bound down several times. 07. That the respondents, in pursuance of the said detention order, executed the warrant through concerned Police on 17.12.2024, handed over the detenu to the Superintendent District Jail, Baderwah, for lodgment of the detenu in the said jail; contents of the warrant were read over and explained to the detenu in the language he understands; that the detenu, vide communication dated 13.12.2024, was made aware of his detention in terms of Section 13(1) of Public Safety Act on the grounds specified therein and informed of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority i.e. District Magistrate, Budgam. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 09. It is quite explicit that the basis for issuing the preventive detention in question had been the FIR registered against the detenue wherein, he is stated to have been granted bail by the competent court of law on 09.06.2023. The respondent No. 2 has not taken note of such an important aspect of the matter anywhere in the counter affidavit or in the grounds of detention, which reflects complete non-application of mind on his part and as such, the impugned detention order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Since the petition has succeeded on the ground of non-application of mind, therefore, the Court does not need to go into the other grounds of challenge. 10. It appears that the detenue had applied for bail which is stated to have been granted to him in the aforesaid FIR by the competent Court of law on 09.06.2023. There is no whisper made either in the counter affidavit or in the grounds of detention as also in the detention order itself that the detenue had been granted bail by the competent court of jurisdiction in the case on the Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Page | 4 HCP 18/2025 basis of which his preventive detention has been ordered, therefore, the impugned detention order reflects non-application of mind. In this regard reference is made to the Judgment titled Anant Sakharam Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported as AIR 1987 SC 137 and also by the Judgment rendered recently in case titled Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana reported as (2023) 9 SCC 587. 11. Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and detention Order No. DMB/PSA/12 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024, issued by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate Budgam, whereby one Nasir Ahmad Khan S/o Mukhtar Ahmad Khan, R/O Zoogu, Tehsil Khansahib, District Budgam, was detained, is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith, if not required in any other case. 12. Disposed of. 13. Record produced by learned counsel for the respondents is returned to him against receipt. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 30.08.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar ” Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Yes/No. Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes/No Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document