1 S. No. 27 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 62/2024 CM No. 6728/2024 Zia Ul Islam …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Parveez Ahmad Wani, Advocate. Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 13.03.2025 (ORAL) 1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged detention order No. 06/DMA/PSA/DET/2023 dated 30.12.2023 (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by respondent 2, (for short ‘the detaining authority’) under and in terms of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act of 1978’). 2. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed to the petition wherein the petition is being opposed, inter-alia, on the premise that the petitioner has been nurturing the secessionist ideology and in fact is motivating others to follow the suit, necessitating his detention under preventive detention which came to be ordered by the detaining authority on proper application of mind and after fulfilling of requisite constitutional safeguards while stating further that the petitioner had been previously involved in FIR No. 149/2016, FIR No. 211/2016, FIR No. 21/2012, FIR No.274/2012 and FIR No. 04/2018 owing to his criminal activities and had continued to remain in adverse notice of security/police for indulging in anti-national activities and that the detention order came to be executed on 06.01.2024 against the petitioner and came to be provided all necessary documents based upon which the detention order had been passed and that the petitioner was explained the grounds of detention in the language he understood as also was informed about his 2 right to make a representation against his detention, in lieu whereof the petitioner put his signature on the execution report, and that upon examination of material as well as the detention record the Government after receipt of opinion of the Advisory Board confirmed the detention order. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions instead of urging all the grounds of challenge in the petition, would confine the challenge to the grounds against the impugned order, that the petitioner has been detained for the alleged activities covered in FIRs 2012, 2016 and 2018 without there being any live and proximate link between the past alleged activities of the petitioner and imperative need to detain him in the year 2023 and that in all the FIRs referred and relied upon by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention, the petitioner stands either acquitted or granted bail by the competent court of law and that the detaining authority has shown its complete unawareness about the said facts rendering the impugned order thus, legally unsustainable. 5. Perusal of the record available on the file indisputably reveals that the petitioner stands acquitted in FIR No.121/2012 on 27.01.2016 and in FIR No.274/2012 the petitioner stands acquitted on 05.06.2015, whereas in FIR No. 149/2016 and FIR No.211/2016 the petitioner stands granted bail by the competent court of law on 28.09.2021 and 20.11.2020 respectively, whereas FIR No.04/2018 stands compromised in Lok Adalat on 27.02.2021 pertaining to the case inter-se the private parties. Further perusal of the detention record produced by counsel for the respondents also tend to show that even the sponsoring agency has failed to show its awareness about the fact of acquittal and release on bail of the petitioner in the said FIRs. The aforesaid position thus, obtaining in the matter manifestly signifies complete non-application of mind by the respondents in general and detaining authority in particular. 6. A deeper and closer examination of the grounds of detention as also the detention record produced by counsel for the respondents, would also reveal that no activity post the alleged involvement of the petitioner in 3 the aforesaid FIRs has been either shown or attributed to the petitioner necessitating his detention under preventive detention. Seemingly the detaining authority has detained the petitioner on account of his involvement in the aforesaid FIRs, which pertain to the years much before the passing of impugned order, thus suggesting no live and proximate link between the past conduct of the petitioner and the imperative need to detain him under and in terms of the impugned order in the year 2023. 7. In regard to above, a reference to the judgements of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “Mohd. Maqbool Itoo Vs. State & Ors.” reported in 2010 (3) JKJ 700, and in case titled as “Rameshwar Shaw Vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan and Anr.” reported in AIR 1964 SC 334, would be relevant and germane. 8. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered, and analyzed hereinabove, the impugned order No. 06/DMA/PSA/DET/2023 dated 30.12.2023 is not legally sustainable and is accordingly quashed with a direction to the respondents, including the concerned jail authority, to release the petitioner forthwith from preventive detention unless he is not required in any other case. 9. The detention records produced by counsel for the respondents is returned back in the open court. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 13.03.2025 Ishaq