HCP No.44/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 02.07.2025 Pronounced on:25.07.2025 HCP No.44/2024 MUFASIL AHMAD THOKER ...PETITIONER(S) Through: -Mr. S. M. Saleem, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: -Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought quashment of the detention order bearing No.180/DMS/PSA/2024 dated 02.01.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Shopian (“the detaining authority”), whereby Mufasil Ahmad Thoker, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the UT/Country. The order is, purportedly, issued by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 [“the Act of 1978”]. 2) It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and indefinite on the basis of which the petitioner could not make a representation. It has been further contended that whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner and that the translated version of the grounds of detention was also not provided to him thereby HCP No.44/2024 disabling him from making an effective representation against his detention. It has been contended that the petitioner has been detained on the basis of stale incidents having no proximate link with the imperative need of his preventive custody and that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned detention order as the petitioner was facing trial in FIR No.7/2019 of P/S D. H. Pora. 3) On being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein besides other contentions, it is submitted that detention was necessitated because of involvement of the detenue in very serious offences against the State as mentioned in the FIR registered against him. 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 further contended that all statutory requirements and constitutional imperatives have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. That the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court including Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198. 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 the parties and perused the material available on record. 5) The first ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the detention order, which is subject HCP No.44/2024 matter of the present writ petition, is that the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention are stale in nature having no proximate link with the imperative detention of the petitioner. It has been contended that the incidents which form basis of the impugned order of detention as narrated in the grounds of detention relate to the year 2019 in respect of which FIR No.7/2019 was registered with P/S D. H. Pora Kulgam and after release of the petitioner on bail, no fresh activity prejudicial to the security of the State is attributed to the petitioner in the grounds of detention. 6) In the above context, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it makes reference to involvement of the petitioner in providing logistic support to the terrorists of HM outfit in the years 2017 and 2018. It is further alleged that in the year 2019, the petitioner was found involved in FIR No.7/2019 for offences under Section 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 19, 20, 38 and 39 ULA(P) Act registered with P/S D. H. Pora. As per the grounds of detention, the petitioner was released on bail after six months and thereafter taken into preventive custody in terms of order No.76/DMK/PSA/19 dated 17.09.2019 and was released in October, 2021. It is specifically stated in the grounds of detention that even after his release, the petitioner was found working on the directions of active terrorist, namely, Farooq Ahmad Bhat @Naliof Cheki Desend, Yaripora District Kulgam and was assisting in recruitment of young blood of South Kashmir in militant outfits. HCP No.44/2024 7) From the above, it is clear that there are specific allegations in the grounds of detention that the petitioner has indulged in activities prejudicial to the security of the State even after his release from preventive custody in October, 2021. The contention of the petitioner that after his release no fresh activity prejudicial to the security of the State is attributed to him in the grounds of detention, is contrary to the factual position. The same, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 8) The next ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for challenging the impugned order of detention is that whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner. In this context, if we have a look at the detention record, it is revealed that the petitioner has received 20 leaves comprising PSA warrant, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier and copy of FIR and other allied documents. In this regard the petitioner has executed a receipt which bears his signatures. The execution report, which is on record, shows that contents of the material supplied to the petitioner have been explained to him in Urdu/Kashmiri languages. Thus, the detention record does not support the contention of the petitioner that he has not been supplied whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention. 9) Lastly, it has been contended that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention as he was already facing trial in FIR No.7/2019 registered HCP No.44/2024 with P/S D. H. Pora Kulgam. In this regard, it is to be noted that in the said FIR, the petitioner was already released on bail and thereafter he was again taken into preventive custody. His preventive custody came to an end in October, 2021, whereafter he continued to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State, the details whereof have been given in the grounds of detention. In these circumstances, the only option available with the detaining authority was to pass a fresh detention order against the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be stated that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. 10) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 11) The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 25.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.07.2025 03:19