IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Pronounced on: 16.05.2025 WP(Crl) No.179/2023 RAYEES AHMAD MALIK ...Petitioner(s) Through: -Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad, Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K &ANR. …Respondent(s) Through: -Mr. Furqan Yaqub, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.29/DMP/PSA/23 dated 12.05.2023, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama-respondent No.2, whereby Rayees Ahmad Malik(“the detenue”), has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order is, purportedly, issued by the detaining authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 2) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been issued without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic in nature. It has been further contended that the safeguards provided under law have not been complied with in 2 WP(Crl) No.179/2024 the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been also contended that the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered. 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 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 the same was read over and explained to him and 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 contented 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 the record. 5) The first ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and non-existent on the basis of which no prudent man can make a representation. In this regard, a perusal of the grounds of detention would reveal that it is clearly indicated that the detenue had come in contact with some OGWs. The names with residence of some of these 3 WP(Crl) No.179/2024 OGWs are mentioned in the grounds of detention. These include Gulzar Ahmad Bhat R/o Nehama Kakapora, Latief Hassan Lone R/o Honipora and Suhail Ahmad Ganai R/o Sethergund. It is clearly indicated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was introduced by the above named OGWs to a hardcore terrorist, Rayees Ahmad Dar. It is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was most dependable source of active LeT terrorist Rayees Ahmad Dar and that the petitioner was responsible for each and every terrorist attack that was carried out in Newa Kakapora and beyond. 6) In the face of aforesaid specific details about the alleged activities of the petitioner, it can, by no stretch of reasoning, be stated that the grounds of detention are vague lacking in material particulars. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit. 7) Next it has been contended that the petitioner has not been furnished whole of the material, on the basis of which impugned order of detention has been passed, so as to enable him to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. In this regard, a perusal of the detention record would reveal that, as per the execution report, the petitioner has been furnished the following material: (i) Detention order (01 leaf) (ii) Notice of detention (01 leaf) (iii) Grounds of detention (03 leaves) (iv) Dossier of detention (03 leaves) (v) Copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other relevant documents (03 leaves) Total (11 leaves) 4 WP(Crl) No.179/2024 Thus, the petitioner has been furnished not only the grounds of detention but also the copy of dossier of detention along with detention order and notice of detention. There is no mention of any FIR in the grounds of detention but there is mention of proceedings under Section 107/151 of Cr. P. C initiated by the Executive Magistrate, 1st Class, Kakapora, against the petitioner. It seems that three leaves relating to these proceedings have also been furnished to the petitioner, which is clear from the execution report. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has not been furnished whole of the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit. 8) Another ground urged by the petitioner is that he has not been informed about his right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention but at the same time the petitioner has himself asserted that he had made a representation against the order of detention. In fact, copy of the representation has been annexed with the petition. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner is self- contradictory. 9) So far as the ground regarding non-consideration of representation of the petitioner is concerned, the record produced by the respondents would reveal that the representation of the petitioner has been considered by the District Magistrate concerned as well as by the Advisory Board, whereafter it has been rejected and the same has been conveyed to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any merit. 5 WP(Crl) No.179/2024 10) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 11) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 16.05.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 16.05.2025 02:45