HCP No. 122/2024. Serial No.06 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 122/2024 Murtaza Ahmad Bader, Age (32) years. S/O Abdul Salam Dader, R/O Baderpora, Qaimoh, Kulgam. Th. his brother, Manzoor Ahmad Bader. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - M/S. Shaheeyar and F. A. Lone, Advocates. V/s 1.Union Territory of J&K, th. Principal/Secretary, Home Department, J&K Govt. Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. District Magistrate, Kulgam. 3. Superintendent Central Jail, Srinagar. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 07.08.2025 1. The petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution through his brother for quashing of detention Order No. 09/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 29.03.2024 (for short “Impugned order”) passed by the District Magistrate, Kulgam-respondent 2 herein (for short “the Detaining Authority”) where-under the petitioner/detenue namely, Murtaza Ahmad Bader, S/O Abdul Salam Bader R/O Baderpora, Qaimoh, Kulgam, 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 to the petition wherein the petition is being opposed and its dismissal is sought on the ground that since the petitioner was nurturing secessionist ideology, HCP No. 122/2024. prejudicial to the security of the State, as such, preventive detention of the petitioner was necessitated which accordingly came to be ordered by the Detaining Authority after proper application of mind as well as complying the requisite statutory and constitutional safeguards. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions invited the attention of this Court to the impugned order to indicate that the Detaining Authority did not itself formulate and framed the grounds of detention, on the basis of which the impugned order came to be passed, but the Superintendent of Police in fact have had furnished the grounds of detention to the Detaining Authority as per the reading of the impugned order, thus, rendering the impugned order bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the Detaining Authority detained the petitioner without drawing subjective satisfaction which is necessary requisite under the Act of 1978 and instead proceeded to detain the petitioner under the Act on mere asking of Superintendent of Police, thus rendering the impugned order bad in law for want of independent application of mind. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the respondents while opposing the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and would insist for dismissal of the petition. 6. Insofar as, the aforesaid first plea of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, perusal of the detention record in general and the impugned order in particular bears testimony to the fact that the Detaining Authority in the opening two lines of the impugned order has specifically stated as under:- HCP No. 122/2024. Page 3 of 4 “Whereas, on the basis of grounds of detention placed before me by the Superintendent of Police, Kulgam vide his No. Legal/PSA//2024/4967-70 dated 27/03/2024, I am satisfied that with a view to prevent Murtaza Ahmad Bader S/O Abdul Salam Bader R/O Baderpora Qaimoh Tehsil Qaimoh & District Kulgam from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the Stat, it is necessary to do so;” Although perusal of the detention record reveals that the aforesaid communication 27th March, 2024, of Superintendent of Police, Kulgam in fact relates to the dossier furnished by the said Superintendent of police, Kulgam to the respondent 2 and not grounds referred in the impugned order yet the aforesaid inaction on the part of the Detaining Authority suggests complete non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority in the matter, more so, in view of the fact that the grounds of detention in essence are found to be replica of the dossier furnished by the Superintendent of Police, Kulgam to the Detaining Authority, thus rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. 7. Insofar as the, next plea of the petitioner is concerned, perusal of the detention record tends to show that the Detaining Authority on the basis of dossier furnished to it by the SSP Kulgam seemingly has ordered the detention of the petitioner and, and has also in the process referred to the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 107/151 Cr.PC. A closer examination of the detention record would suggest that although a reference for initiation of proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr. PC, against the petitioner have had been made by the concerned police Station on 26th January, 2024 and on 11th March, 2024, yet nothing is forthcoming from the record that the said proceedings were brought to a conclusion and the petitioner was bound down by the competent authority under Section HCP No. 122/2024. Page 4 of 4 107/151 Cr.PC, or else thereafter the petitioner violated the terms and conditions set out there in the said proceedings. The aforesaid position obtaining in the matter thus, signifies that the Detaining Authority has grossly erred and has failed to derive independent subjective satisfaction in the matter as well while directing the preventive detention of the petitioner. 8. Viewed thus for the aforesaid reasons, the rest of the grounds urged in the petition pale into insignificance and need not to be adverted to. 9. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned Order No. No. 09/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 29.03.2024 is, quashed with the direction to the respondents including the concerned Jail authority to release the petitioner-Murtaza Ahmad Bader, S/O Abdul Salam Bader R/O Baderpora, Qaimoh, Kulgam, from preventive detention, unless is required in any other case. 9. The detention record produced by counsel for the respondents is returned back to him in the open Court. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 07.08.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document :14.08.2025 10:39