HCP No. 191/2024. Serial No.08 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 191/2024 Huzaif Ahmad Dar, Age (21) years. S/O Gh. Qadir Dar, R/O Gadool, Tehsil Kokernag, District, Anantnag. Th. her mother, Meema Banoo ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Asif Nabi, Advocate. V/s 1.Union Territory of J&K, th. Principal/Secretary, Home Department, J&K Govt. Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. District Magistrate, Anantnag. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag. 4. Senior Superintendent Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Illyas Nazir Laway, 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 her mother for quashment of detention Order No. 09/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.04.2024 (for short “Impugned order”) passed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag-respondent 2 herein (for short “the Detaining Authority”) where under the petitioner/detenue namely, Huzaif Ahmad Dar, S/O Gh. Qadir Dar R/O Gadool Kokernag, District, Anantnag, 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 wherein the petition is being opposed on the ground that upon examining the dossier carefully and the other material furnished, the Detaining Authority after proper application of mind became satisfied that the activities of the detenue HCP No. 191/2024. are prejudicial to the security of the State/UT of J&K which necessitated the preventive detention of the petitioner and accordingly, in terms of order dated 20th April, 2024, the petitioner came to be detained after complying with and fulfilling all statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Notwithstanding the multiple grounds of challenge urged in the petition by the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner would plead that the petitioner was not furnished either the notice of detention, order of detention, grounds of detention or else the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority for preventive detention of the petitioner, rendering the petitioner incapable of submitting a detailed representation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner for maintaining the instant petition, the impugned order, the grounds of detention as also the notice of detention annexed with the petition were obtained unofficially. It is further pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner that the Detaining Authority did not applied its independent mind while detaining the petitioner, as the petitioner have had been found to be a suspect in case FIR No. 219/2022, registered with Police Station Anantnag on 2nd July, 2022, wherein after conducting investigation thereof, the petitioner due to insufficient evidence came to be released on surety bond and yet thereafter without there being any activity of the petitioner being prejudicial to the security of the state, the petitioner came to be detained under the Act of 1978, merely on the basis of the past activities of the petitioner referred in FIR No. 219/2022 (supra). 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 detention record as well as the counter affidavit filed to the petition and HCP No. 191/2024. in this regard invited the attention of this Court to the execution report of the Officer who has executed the order of detention bearing signature of the petitioner herein to show that the petitioners stands furnished 23 documents consisting of order of detention, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier and copies of FIR’s, statements of witnesses as well as other relevant documents. The counsel for the respondents would also refer to the report drawn and framed by the security agencies, forming part of the detention record and furnished to the Detaining Authority in terms of letter dated 17th April, 2024, addressed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag to the Detaining Authority to indicate that after the petitioner came to be released in the FIR (supra) on account of insufficient evidence upon execution of a surety bond, the petitioner continued to be in touch and contact with the over-ground workers and other associates of LeT terrorist outfit, thus generating a strong apprehension that the petitioner would indulge in the activities fatal to the integrity and sovereignty of the nation as also to the security of the State. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid rival submissions of the appearing counsel for the parties, a closer examination of the detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents would lend support to his submissions that the petitioner stands furnished 23 leaves of documents consisting of detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier and copies of FIR’s, statement of witnesses and other relevant documents at the time of execution of the detention order and the petitioner in lieu thereof has executed a receipt as well, thus rendering the aforesaid plea of the counsel for the petitioner is found to be factually incorrect. 7. Insofar as, the aforesaid next plea of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, perusal of the detention record also reveals that the Dy. SP HCP No. 191/2024. (Circle Anantnag) has in his report comprising of 06 leaves and furnished to the Detaining Authority through SSP Anantnag spell out the details of the activities of the petitioner post his release on surety bond in connection with FIR No. 219/2022 which report in specific terms reveals that in terms of secret information received from security agencies, the petitioner after his release on surety bond was found still in close touch and contact with over- ground workers and associates of LeT terrorist outfit. The said material seemingly has been taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority as also the dossier furnished to it by the SSP concerned whereupon, the Detaining Authority ordered the preventive detention of the petitioner in terms of the impugned order, summing up in the grounds of detention that the said activities of the petitioner are highly prejudicial to the Security of the State and in order to prevent the petitioner from indulging in similar activities, the detention of the petitioner has become imperative under the Act. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the mater, the petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. 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 10:36