HCP No.128/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Pronounced on:01.08.2025 HCP No.128/2024 MOHAMMAD ABDULLAH BHAT ...PETITIONER(S) Through: -Mr. R. A. Bhat, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: -Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought quashment of the detention order bearing No.22/DMB/ PSA/2024 dated 12.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla (“the detaining authority”), whereby Mohammad Abdullah Bhat, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K. The order is, purportedly, issued by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 2) It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and indefinite on the basis of which the petitioner could not make a representation. It has been further contended that whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner thereby disabling him from making an effective representation against his detention. It has been contended that the petitioner has been HCP No.128/2024 detained on the basis of stale incidents having no proximate link with the imperative needs of his preventive custody. It has also been contended that the representation filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered. 3) On being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein besides other contentions, it is submitted that detention was necessitated because of involvement of the detenue in various criminal cases as mentioned in the grounds of detention. 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 that all statutory requirements and constitutional imperatives have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. That the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court including the judgment in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198. 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 the material available on record. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds: HCP No.128/2024 a. That the impugned order of detention is based upon stale incidents having no proximate link to the activities alleged to be prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. b. That the representation filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents thereby violating his statutory and constitutional rights. 6) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, a perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the incidents referred therein pertain to the year 2016, that is more than eight years prior to the passing of impugned order of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is no reference to any specific recent incident showing involvement of the petitioner except for vague assertions. Although it is mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner has continued to indulge in similar activities after his release, yet no details about these alleged activities have been given. Thus, the assertions of the detaining authority are vague lacking in material particulars. It is, therefore, clear that the order of detention has been based on past and stale incidents and the allegations regarding recent activities are vague and indefinite. 7) The Supreme Court in the case of Sama Aruna v. State of Telengana and & anr, (2018) 12 SCC 150, while holding that the incidents which are said to have taken place long back, cannot form basis for being satisfied that the detenue is going to engage in similar activities, observed as under: “17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid detention order was passed on grounds which are stale and HCP No.128/2024 which could not have been considered as relevant for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu must be detained. The detention order must be based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of a person based on his past conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances. The live and proximate link that must exist between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him must be taken to have been snapped in this case. A detention order which is founded on stale incidents, must be regarded as an order of punishment for a crime, passed without a trial, though purporting to be an order of preventive detention. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it.” 8) From the aforesaid enunciation of the law on the subject, it is clear that there has to be a live and proximate link between the past conduct of the detenue and the activities alleged to be prejudicial to the security of the State. In the instant case, the said link is completely missing as the time between the order of detention and the incidents referred to in the grounds of detention is far too large to presume such a link. The impugned order of detention, therefore, cannot be sustained. 9) Next it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents thereby violating his statutory and constitutional. 10) The record produced by the respondents reveals that the representation dated 10.07.2024 of the petitioner was forwarded by the Home Department to the Special Director General, CID, J&K, on 11.07.2024 for his comments. It is also revealed that upon receipt of report dated 22.07.2024 from the HCP No.128/2024 CID, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Government and the same has been conveyed by the Government to the District Magistrate vide communication dated 24.07.2024. However, the respondents have not placed on record anything to show that the order of rejection of representation was conveyed to the petitioner. It is not coming forth from the record produced by the respondents as to whether the result of the representation has been conveyed to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others, (2021) 20 SCC 98, while dealing with the effect of failure to communicate the result of the representation has held that failure in timely communication of the rejection of the representation is a relevant factor for determining the delay that the detenue is protected under Article 22(5). It has been further held that failure of the government to communicate rejection of detenue’s representation in a time bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the detention order. 11) A perusal of the detention record reveals that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the government and an intimation in this regard has been communicated by Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, to the District Magistrate, Baramulla in terms of communication dated 27.07.2024. The respondents have not placed on record anything to show that the order of rejection of HCP No.128/2024 representation was conveyed to the petitioner. The communication dated 27.07.2024 is an inter-departmental communication between Home Department and District Magistrate, Baramulla. It is not forthcoming from the record produced by the respondents as to whether the result of the representation has been conveyed to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha’s case (supra) while dealing with the effect of failure to communicate the result of the representation has held that failure in timely communication of the rejection of the representation is a relevant factor for determining the delay that the detenue is protected under Article 22(5). It has been further held that failure of the government to communicate rejection of detenue’s representation in a time bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the detention order. 12) For the foregoing reasons, 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. 13) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 01.08.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 01.08.2025 02:31