IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 04.07.2025 Pronounced on: 18.07.2025 HCP No.56/2024 ASHIQ HUSSAIN DAR ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Omais Kawoosa, Advocate. Vs. U T OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Furqan Yaqub Sofi, GA. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has assailed order of detention bearing No.03/DMP/PSA/24 dated 10.01.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama. In terms of the impugned order, Ashiq Hussain Dar @Asif Dar has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. 2) The petitioner has contended that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue. It P a g e | 2 has also been contended that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order. 3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and contents of the same were read over and explained to him; that 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 in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. 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 record of the cases including the detention record. 5) The main ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the detention order passed against the petitioner is that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order, inasmuch as no fresh activity has been alleged in the grounds of detention against the petitioner after his release on bail in FIR No.65/2022 of Police Station, Litter. P a g e | 3 6) In the above context, a perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that there is a reference to incident dated 16.06.2022, according to which two persons, namely, Mohammad Younis and Jan Mohammad Ganie, who were working as OGWs of terrorist outfits, had planted an IED on the directions of terrorists for causing grave threat to the life and property of the common people as well as police personnel. Regarding this incident, FIR No.65/2022 for offences under Section 18, 20, 23, 39 UAP Act, ¾ Explosive Substances Act was registered in P/S Litter and the investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident was established and, accordingly, he was taken into custody and was later on released on bail on 21.10.2023. The grounds of detention further reveal that upon release of the petitioner on bail, he was bound down by the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Pulwama, under Section 107/151 of Cr. P. C. 7) After narrating the aforesaid facts, the detaining authority has expressed apprehension that the petitioner may again indulge in subversive activities and continue his support to the terrorists. On this basis, the detaining authority has drawn satisfaction that if the petitioner is not taken into preventive custody, it may pose threat to the security of the State. The question that arises for determination is as to whether it was open to the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention only on the basis of the past conduct of the petitioner without there being mention of any fresh activity after the release of petitioner on bail and after he was made to execute a bond for keeping peace and good behaviour. P a g e | 4 8) The Supreme Court has, in the case of Rameshwar Shaw vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan & anr. (AIR 1964 SC 334), held that in deciding the question as to whether it is necessary to detain the person, the detaining authority has to be satisfied that if such person is not detained, he may act in a prejudicial manner. This conclusion can be drawn by the detaining authority in the light of the evidence placed against the said person which has to be examined by the detaining authority and an independent decision thereon has to be taken. 9) Thus, past conduct of a detenue has to be taken into account while drawing an inference whether such person is likely to act in a manner prejudicial either to maintenance of public order or security of the State. Such conduct of the detenue should have a proximate link to the date of passing of the order of detention and the detaining authority has to draw a satisfaction that there are compelling reasons for passing a detention order against such person. 10) Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the past incident on the basis of which the petitioner is sought to be detained, had taken place on 16.06.2022, which is about one and a half years prior to the date of passing of the impugned order of detention. In the grounds of detention, no reference has been made to any incident involving the petitioner after his release on bail on 21.10.2023. Thus, the gap between the previous incident, in which the petitioner was found to be involved, and the date of passing of the impugned order of detention is far too large to presume a connection between the two. P a g e | 5 11) Apart from the above, the record reveals that after the release of petitioner on 21.10.2023, he was proceeded against in terms of Section 107/151 of Cr. P. C and was bound down by the Executive Magistrate from committing of breach of peace and disturbing public tranquillity. The detaining authority has not mentioned as to in which prejudicial activities the petitioner has indulged either after his release on bail or after he had executed the bond in the proceedings under Section 107/151 of Cr. P. C. Merely making reference to involvement of the petitioner in FIR No.65/2022 and proceedings under Section 107/151 of Cr. P. C without indicating anything about his involvement in fresh activities prejudicial either to the maintenance of public order or security of the State which necessitated his preventive detention under Public Safety Act in terms of the impugned order, it cannot be stated that there were any compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have either taken any steps to seek cancellation of bail or to proceed against the petitioner for having committed breach of the bond executed by him in the proceedings under Section 107/151 of Cr. P. C. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order of detention. 12) From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is no proximate and live link between the facts referred to in the grounds of detention and the detention of the petitioner in terms of the impugned order of detention. It is also clear that there were no compelling circumstances for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention in the P a g e | 6 absence of fresh activities attributable to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned detention order is not sustainable in law. 13) For the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 14) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 18.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 18.07.2025 22:30