HCP No.21/2025 p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 14.07.2025 Pronounced on: 25.07.2025 HCP No.21/2025 ABDUL GANI MIR @GANI KAK ...Petitioner(s) Through: -Mr. Mudasir Bin Hassan, Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K & OTHERS …Respondent(s) Through: -Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, Assisting Counsel. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has assailed the legality and veracity of detention order bearing No.DIVCOM-“K”/157/2024 dated 27.08.2024, issued by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir (the detaining authority). In terms of the aforesaid order, Ab. Gani Mir @ Gani Kak S/o Abli Mir resident of Frestabal Pampore (for short "the detenue") has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”). 2) The petitioner has contended that the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent HCP No.21/2025 p. 2 man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the representation filed by the petitioner against his detention has not been considered by the respondents. 3) Despite repeated opportunities, the respondent did not choose to file the reply affidavit. However, the detention record has been produced by learned counsel for the respondents. 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 allegations made against the petitioner are vague without any specific particulars, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make a suitable and effective representation. 6) In the above context, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it refers to an incident relating to FIR No.10/2022 for offences under Section 8/20-29 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Pampore. As per the allegations made in the said FIR, on 05.02.2022, the petitioner along with his other associates was found to be in possession of 05 Kgs of Bang Choora like substance. It also appears that the petitioner was HCP No.21/2025 p. 3 bailed out in the said case. As per the grounds of detention, after having been bailed out, the petitioner indulged in similar activities which is based upon the report of the sponsoring agency. However, the grounds of detention are silent with regard to the particulars of the activities in which the petitioner is alleged to have indulged after grant of bail by the court of law. It is not mentioned in the grounds of detention as to on which date and at which place the petitioner was found to be indulging in illicit trade of drugs after having been bailed out by the competent court. 7) A perusal of the police dossier submitted by the sponsoring agency, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority while formulating the grounds of detention and for passing the impugned detention order, reveals that there is nothing specific stated therein as regards the alleged activities of the petitioner. In fact, a perusal of the detention record would also reveal that there is no other FIR registered against the petitioner in any of the police stations of the Kashmir Valley. The only allegation made in the beat report is that the petitioner has become a drug addict and this may persuade others to take to drug addiction. On the basis of such allegations, no prudent person would come to a conclusion that the petitioner has indulged in illicit traffic of drugs. 8) I am conscious of the fact this Court cannot undertake a judicial review of the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority yet there has to be some material before the detaining authority for HCP No.21/2025 p. 4 deriving subjective satisfaction with regard to imperative need of invoking stringent law of preventive detention against a person. Sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be gone into by this Court in these proceedings. Absence of material can certainly form basis for interfering with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In the present case, there was absolutely no material before the detaining authority to frame an opinion that the petitioner was indulging in illicit traffic of drugs after having been granted bail by the court of law. Thus, subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in the present case appears to be a mechanical exercise of power which cannot be sustained in law. 9) For the foregoing reason, 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. 10) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 25.07.2025 "Bhat Altaf-Secy" Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No