HCP No. 51/2024. Serial No.09 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 51/2024 Sheikh Hyder Ali, Age (19) years. S/O Ali Mohammad Sheikh, R/O RebonWatergam, District, Baramulla. Th. his father Ali Mohammad Sheikh. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Ms. Suwaiba, Advocate. V/s 1.Union Territory of J&K, th. Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. District Magistrate, Baramulla. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police Sopore,Baramulla. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 04.09.2025 1. The petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution through his father for quashment of detention Order No.01/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 18.01.2024 (for short “Impugned order”), passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla- respondent 2 herein (for short “the Detaining Authority”) whereunder the petitioner, has been detained by the Detaining Authority under the Provisions of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. The impugned order is being challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds urged in the instant petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that none of the legal, statutory or fundamental rights of the petitioner have been violated in the process of detaining him under the Act. It is being stated that the petitioner had been found affiliated with LeT terrorist outfit, and a close associate of HCP No. 51/2024. one Arif Riyaz Dar, OGW of the said LeT terrorist organization, providing support for transporting foreign terrorists and also had been found in developing contacts with terrorists and acting on their directions, resulting into registration of FIR No. 34/2023 under Section 13 ULAP Act in Police Station Panzalla and owing the said prejudicial activities, the police concerned prepared a dossier after noticing that the normal law is not sufficient to deter the petitioner from indulging and continuing in the aforesaid prejudicial activities and, accordingly, sought detention of the petitioner under preventive law and that the Detaining Authority after examining the dossier carefully and also the material connected therewith and after being satisfied that the activities of the petitioner are pre-judicial to the security of the State, ordered the detention of the petitioner in terms of the impugned order with a view to prevent him to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state and that the said detention order was executed on 2nd January, 2024, against the petitioner and in terms of communication dated 18th January, 2024, the petitioner also came to be informed about his detention on the grounds specified as well as his right of making a representation against the said detention and that the Advisory Board as well examined the case of the petitioner and furnished its opinion where the Government, confirmed the detention order of the petitioner on 1st February, 2024. It is further pleaded in the counter affidavit that the grounds of detention framed by the Detaining Authority, based upon which the detention order came to be passed are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant, without any vagueness or staleness and that the detention of the petitioner was ordered strictly after complying with the provisions of the Act, and the constitutional safeguards. HCP No. 51/2024. Page 3 of 6 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Before proceeding to advert to the rival submissions of appearing counsel for the parties, it needs to be provided here that, “the power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention and that the power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation which may not relate to an offence and that it is not a parallel proceedings and does not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched and order of preventive detention, may be made before or during prosecution and that order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal and that the pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention so is also order of preventive detention not a bar to prosecution”. The said position of law has been held by the Apex Court in case titled as “Haradhan Shah vs. State of W.B” reported in 1975 (3) SCC 198. It also needs to mention here that the Apex Court in case titled as “State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC 157,” has held that the scope of judicial review qua the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in preventive detention matters is extremely limited and while examining the material, which is made basis of such subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority, the Court would not act as a Court of appeal and find fault such subjective satisfaction. 5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the case in hand, the fundamental grounds of challenge, urged by the petitioner in the petition is that the grounds are vague, having no HCP No. 51/2024. Page 4 of 6 nexus with the petitioner and stands fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action. However, a bare perusal of the grounds of detention belies the contention of the petitioner, in that, the grounds of detention are found to be explicit and specific, providing the details of the activities, attributed to the petitioner alleged to be prejudicial to the Security of the State, so much so, no material worth the name has been placed on record by the petitioner to dispute that the allegations levelled by the police against him are fabricated. The contention of the petitioner seemingly is merely a general allegation. The further ground of challenge, urged by the petitioner is that the Detaining Authority did not furnish the entire material to the petitioner, be it communication dated 11th December, 2023, dossier or other connected documents, relied upon by the Detaining Authority, rendering him incapable of making a representation against the detention. 6. However, perusal of the detention record produced by appearing counsel for the respondents negates the said plea of the petitioner, in that, the record tends to show that the petitioner stands furnished 23 leaves of material, consisting of detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier of detention, copies of FIR’s, and statements of the witnesses by the executing officer namely SI, Zakir Hussain of DPL, Sopore, in lieu whereof, the petitioner has put his signature upon the said execution report. Besides, the said execution report is also supported with an affidavit of the said executing officer which too has not been disputed or denied by the petitioner by filing any response thereto. Further perusal of the detention record also reveals that the petitioner has not submitted any HCP No. 51/2024. Page 5 of 6 representation against his detention and availed the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. 7. Insofar as the next ground urged by the petitioner that he was detained, owing to his alleged involvement in criminal activity, the said alleged criminal law was sufficient for dealing with him and there was thus no reason and occasion for the Detaining Authority for taking the petitioner under preventive detention. However, perusal of the record in general and the grounds of detention in particular reveals that the Detaining Authority have had not been oblivious to the fact that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case, registered under FIR No. 34/2023 and had even submitted a bail application thereto and has under these circumstances recorded compelling reasons for detaining the petitioner under preventive law, not only showing its awareness about the pendency of the criminal case and seeking of bail therein by the petitioner, but also compelling reasons for detaining the petitioner while providing that the ordinary criminal law may not be sufficient to deter him from continuing with the activities prejudicial to the security of the State. 7. 7. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, coupled with the fact that the Detaining Authority is found to have duly complied with statutory requirements and adhered to constitutional safeguards while detaining the petitioner after having derived subjective satisfaction, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion and display indulgence inasmuch as to interfere even with the said subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority in view of the aforesaid position of laid down by the Apex Court or else to advert to rest of the HCP No. 51/2024. Page 6 of 6 grounds of challenge urged in the petition which for the foregoing reasons pale into insignificance. 8. Viewed thus, the petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. The detention record produced by counsel for the respondents is returned to him in the open Court. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 04.09.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No. Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document :16.09.2025 09:56