1 HCP No. 50/ 2024 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 50/2024 Reserved on: 03.07.2025 Pronounced on: 23.07.2025 Arif Ahmad Sheikh, aged 35 years S/o Abdul Ahad Sheikh R/o Tujjar Sharief Sopore Baramuylla through his brother namely Muzaffar Ahmad Sheikh. ……. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. B. A. Tak Advocate Versus 1. Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary to Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/ Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Baramulla .…Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali Dy. AG CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of detention Order No.106/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 09.10.2020 (for short “detention order”), passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla (for short “detaining authority”) whereby one Arif Ahmad Sheikh, S/o Abdul Ahad Sheikh R/o Tujjar Sharief Sopore Baramulla, (for short “detenu) has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Security of State, on the grounds made mention of therein. 2. The grounds of challenge, inter alia, stated and averred by petitioner in the instant writ petition are that the detenu has been detained and arrested in connection with an FIR No.03/2020 by the Police Station Bomai, Sopore and subjected to suffer criminal trial in which the detenu did not apply for bail and still came to be slapped with preventive detention order and taken into custody without any notice to the detenu and so much so even came to be transferred out of UT of J&K to be lodged in District Jail Varanasi at present where he is, inasmuch as the allegations made in the grounds of detention are 2 HCP No. 50/ 2024 vague and indefinite and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations and the cases mentioned in grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu and detaining authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass impugned order of detention. It is further submitted by petitioner that the detaining authority has not furnished the material including dossier, relied upon by it, to detenu to enable him to make an effective representation by giving his version of facts attributed to him and make an attempt to dispel the apprehensions nurtured by detaining authority concerning involvement of detenu in alleged activities; 3. It is being also stated by counsel for petitioner that while detention order was passed on 09.10.2020, but it was executed on 27.07.2023, that is after a delay of 02 years & 09 months (i.e. 990 days) without supplying any material such as detention order and grounds of detention and despite the fact that detenu was all along available for execution during this period, the impugned detention order was not executed. 4. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of State and that the activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents. 6. There is no plausible, cogent and material ground given by the respondents in their reply affidavit to rebut the contentions of petitioner raised by him, to justify delay of 02 years and 09 months between passing of impugned order of detention dated 09.10.2020, and its execution on 27.07.2023, which is also evident from perusal of Execution Report. Learned counsel for the detenu would contend that inordinate delay in execution of detention order vitiates it. In support of his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Apex Court passed in case titled K.P.M Baseer v. State of Karnataka and Anr, reported in AIR 2992 (SC) 1353. 7. Record reveals as also having been admitted by the respondents in 3 HCP No. 50/ 2024 their counter affidavit filed to the petition as well that the detenu came to be arrested on 13.04.2020, in connection with FIR No. 03/2020, registered with Police Station, Bomai and the impugned order came to be passed on 09.10.2020 and executed on 27.07.2023. Neither the counter affidavit nor the detention record produced by the counsel for respondents give any kind of explanation muchless a satisfactory or reasonable one as to why the impugned order came to be executed after a considerable period of time, approximately after two years and nine months. In absence of such an explanation and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment “K.P.M Baseer v. State of Karnataka and Anr”, as also in the judgment titled as “Adishwar Jain v. Union of India and another (2006) 11 SCC 339” delayed execution of detention order vitiates the same. At Para 15 of the Adishwar Jan judgment supra , following has been held:- “15. Delay, as is well known, at both stages has to be explained. The court is required to consider the question having regard to the overall picture. We may notice that in SK Serajul v. State of West Bengal [(1975) 2 SCC 78] , this Court opined; “There was thus delay of both stages and this delay, unless satisfactorily explained, would throw considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Burdwan recited in the order of detention. It would be reasonable to assume that if the District Magistrate of Burdwan was really and genuinely satisfied after proper application of mind to the materials before him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner, he would have acted with greater promptitude both in making the order of detention as also in securing the arrest of the petitioner, and the petitioner would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a long period of time to carry on his nefarious activities ….” 8. In view of the aforesaid factual position obtaining in the matter as well as the position of law supra, impugned order would not legally sustain, as the respondents neither in the counter affidavit nor in the detention record have anywhere stated that any sincere efforts much less serious were made for executing the impugned order, more so, when it not being anywhere also alleged by the respondents either in the counter affidavit or in the detention record that the petitioner herein was not available for execution of the impugned order or that the execution of the order is attributable to the 4 HCP No. 50/ 2024 petitioner 9. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the instant petition is disposed of and Detention Order No. 106/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 09.10.2020, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla, is quashed. As a corollary thereof, respondents, including the Jail Superintendent concerned, are directed to set the detenu at liberty forthwith provided he is not required in any other case. Disposed of. 10. Detention record be returned to counsel for respondents. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 23.07.2025 (Qazi Amjad, Secy) Whether approved for reporting? No