P a g e | 1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No.237/2025 CM 4151/2025 CM 7578/2025 Reserved on: 21.04.2026 Pronounced on: 29.04.2026 Uploaded on: 30.04.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced- Full Danish Farooq Bhat, S/O Farooq Ahmad Bhat, (Through his father) R/O Kulangam, Kupwara. …Petitioner(s) Through: Adv. Arafat Rashid. Vs. 1. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Civil Sectt. Srinagar. 2. Director General of Police, J&K, Srinagar. 3. District Magistrate, Kupwara. 4. Sr. Superintendent of Police, P.D Handwara. 5. Superintendent District Jail, Jammu. …Respondent(s) Through: GA Faheem Nisar Shah. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein -Danish Farooq Bhat (‘detenue’ for short) is aggrieved of the order passed by the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Kupwara (‘DM’ for short), who, in exercise of powers P a g e | 2 conferred on him under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, as detaining authority has detained the petitioner in order to prevent him from the activities detrimental to the security of the UT of J&K in terms of detention Order No. 06-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 ( ‘impugned order’ for short). 1. The impugned order of detention is challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that the respondents have not followed due procedure of law while detaining the detenue under the preventive law which renders his detention illegal; that the illegal activities attributed to the detenue are all imaginary, false, baseless, concocted and based on surmises; that the detenue was illegally implicated in case FIR No. 133/2017 under Section 7/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Handwara; that the investigation in the said FIR culminated in filing of a charge-sheet, presented before the court of competent jurisdiction and the same is pending trial; that after registration of FIR No. 133/2017 there are no fresh allegations leveled against the detenue; that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while preparing the grounds of detention and has acted upon the recommendations of the Police agencies and has framed the grounds of detention at their behest; that there is no cogent material to detain the detenue under the preventive law; that the satisfaction is illusory and not valid one; that the detention of the detenue is patently illegal and against the law and deserves to be quashed. 2. Respondents, pursuant to notice after admission of the petition to hearing, filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of detention is based on a reasonable prediction of future P a g e | 3 behavior of the detenue; that the detenue’s anti-national and illegal activities have posed a serious threat to the public safety and security of UT of J&K; that the preventive detention is devised to afford protection to the Society and the object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept him before he does it and to prevent him from doing; and that any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not contribute in any way to the nature of punishment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the plea of vagueness in the grounds of detention. It is being argued that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention relate to the year 2017 and those activities have no proximity with the period when the impugned order was passed for the purpose of preventive detention unless any fresh activity is not attributed to the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not mentioned in the impugned detention order that normal law was ever invoked before taking recourse to preventive detention law and that too was applied merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It was prayed to upset the impugned order being unsustainable for the aforestated grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, supporting the detention order, contended that the detenue’s continuous anti- national and illegal activities, made it imperative to detain the detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act and there were sufficient grounds available for such detention. It is further contended that the live link is still sustaining, as the detenue is still involved in the anti-national activities and the adverse reports P a g e | 4 projected by the sponsoring agency to recommend the detenue for preventive detention under the provisions of the Public Safety Act. 5. Heard, perused the detention record as has been made available by learned counsel for the respondents and considered the same. 6. The detaining authority-DM has based the detention order on the grounds that the detenue was supporter of banned organization of ‘Lashker-e-Toiba’, indulged in subversive activities; that he was involved in a case registered at Police Station, Handwara in the year 2017 vide FIR No.133/2017 under section 7/25 IA Act, in which charge-sheet was laid before the competent court of law and the petitioner was enlarged on bail in the said case; that the detenue was influenced by the radical ideology and was indulged in subversive activities; and that in view of terrorist attack in Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam and to curb his activities, it was imperative to detain the detenue to provide peaceful environment in the region. 7. The allegations leveled against the detenue that besides being involved in an old case of the year 2017, he is still inclined towards anti-national activities particularly in view of recent terrorist attack in Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam and is influenced by radical ideology, is all vague as no reference has been made to any specific activity. In such a situation the detenue would not be in a position to submit an effective and a meaningful representation before DM or the competent authority in the Government, to have a fresh look into the matter. 8. The Supreme Court of India and also the various High Courts including this Court, consistently hold that preventive detention on vague, irrelevant or ambiguous grounds is illegal and violates Article P a g e | 5 22(5) of the Constitution. The detaining authority must provide specific details to allow the detenue to make an effective and meaningful representation. Failure to furnish the aforesaid details such as dates, time and locations of alleged activities renders the detention a ‘mechanical’ exercise of power, a serious invasion of personal liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-existent, irrelevant or vague grounds that cannot be understood, the detention cannot be justified. Reference can be made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases reported in (i) (2023) 9 SCC 587 titled ‘Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana & Ors.’; and (ii) ‘Chaju Ram Vs. State of J&K’ reported as AIR 1971 SC 263. 9. In Ameena Begum’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para-49 that:- “49.The other aspect requiring some guidance for detaining authorities and on which we wish to comment is that there is no requirement in law of orders of detention being expressed in language that would normally be considered elegant or artistic. An order of detention, which is capable of comprehension, has to precisely set forth the grounds of detention without any vagueness. The substance of the order and how it is 36 understood by the detenu determines its nature. An order in plain and simple language providing clarity of how the subjective satisfaction was formed is what a detenu would look for, since the detenu has a right to represent against the order of detention and claim that such order should not have been made at all. If the detenu fails to comprehend the grounds of detention, the very purpose of affording him the opportunity to make a representation could be defeated. At the same time, the detaining authority ought to ensure that the order does not manifest consideration of extraneous factors. The detaining authority must be cautious and circumspect that no extra or additional word or sentence finds place in the order of detention, which evinces the human P a g e | 6 factor - his mindset of either acting with personal predilection by invoking the stringent preventive detention laws to avoid or oust judicial scrutiny, given the restrictions of judicial review in such cases, or as an authority charged with the notion of overreaching the courts, chagrined and frustrated by orders granting bail to the detenu despite stiff opposition raised by the State and thereby failing in the attempt to keep the detenu behind bars”. 10. Again the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chaju Ram’s case (supra) has observed and enunciated that:- “Even as to the grounds, we have something to say. The grounds charge him with having conspired with some leaders of Democratic Conference and having incited landless people of R.S.Pura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land comprised in Nandpur Mechanised Farm and to have persuaded them to resist violently any attempt to evict them. No details of the leaders of the Conference or of the persons incited or the dates on which he conspired or incited the squatters or the time when such conference took place, are mentioned. It would be impossible for anybody to make a representation against such grounds. These grounds, on the authorities of this Court, too numerous to be cited here, must be held to be vague. Therefore on both the twin grounds, namely, that he was deprived of his right to make a representation and also because the grounds in themselves were very vague, we must hold that there was no compliance with the law as laid down in the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. The result, therefore, is that the detention must be declared to be unlawful and Chaju must be declared to be entitled to his liberty. He is ordered to be released. The detenu was questioned by us and he expressed a desire that he may not be released in Delhi, because he has no means of going back. He asked to be released in Jammu. We direct therefore that he shall be taken back to the place where he was in detention in Jammu and released within the shortest possible time.” 11. It is the further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of impugned detention order is a verbatim copy of the dossier and no other material has been considered by the detaining P a g e | 7 authority which speaks volumes about the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority which does not justify the preventive detention and the detention order requires quashment. 12. In a case titled ‘Jai Singh & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir’ reported as AIR 1985 SC 764, it has been observed that if the detention order is verbatim copy of the dossier, it would amount to non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Para-13 of the judgment being relevant is reproduced as under:- "13. Applying the settled legal position to the facts of the present case, I find that the order impugned cannot stand as it is based on grounds of detention, which is only verbatim copy of police dossier. The order of detention, for the reasons, exhibit total non- application of mind on the part of detaining authority and therefore, the petition is allowed and the detention order No. PSA/104 dated 16.10.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua-respondent No. 2 directing the detention of Balbir Chand S/O Rana R/O Chack Drab Khan, Tehsil and District Kathua is quashed. Respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case". 13. On perusal of dossier prepared and submitted by the police to the detaining authority and the impugned order passed by him, based thereon, it is found that the impugned order, particularly the grounds therefor, and the grounds mentioned in the dossier by the police are almost verbatim, except for some cosmetic changes. The impugned order is, thus, not sustainable on this account alone. 14. Except the case FIR registered in the year 2017, wherein detenue was alleged to have attended the funeral prayer of Lashker-e-Toiba killed terrorist namely Sabzar on 06.06.2017 along with a pistol and P a g e | 8 later surrendered before Security Forces at Kulangam, there is no specific allegation against the detenue as to how and in what manner his participation in the funeral prayer can be a threat to the security of UT of J&K. 15. The vague grounds cannot be based to deprive a citizen of his cherished fundamental right of liberty so as to detain him. Mere apprehension that he was involved in some criminal activities in the year 2017, with no fresh, proximate activities, there is no justification for preventive detention of the detenue in the year 2025 there being no live link and stale grounds. 16. In the case of “Sama Aruna Vs. State of Telangana and others,” reported in (2018)12 SCC 150 against a detention order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police Rachakonda Commissionerate, Rangareddy District, Telangana, the detenue, through his wife, had preferred a writ petition challenging preventive detention which came to be dismissed and the matter reached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in an appeal. The order of preventive detention was based upon the grounds of detention which came to be referred to six criminal cases against the detenue, four of which are of 2007, one of 2013 and one of 2014. The detention came to be questioned on the plea of grounds being stale. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came to consider the relevance of 9 to 14 years’ old incidents resulting in FIRs through a grossly belated order of detention. In paragraphs 16 & 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came up with the following reference:- “16. Obviously, therefore, the power to detain, under the Act of 1986, can be exercised only for preventing a person from engaging in, P a g e | 9 or pursuing or taking some action which adversely affects or is likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order; or for preventing him from making preparations for engaging in such activities. There is little doubt that the conduct or activities of the detenu in the past must be taken into account for coming to the conclusion that he is going to engage in or make preparations for engaging in such activities, for many such persons follow a pattern of criminal activities. But the question is how far back? There is no doubt that only activities so far back can be considered as furnish a cause for preventive detention in the present. That is, only those activities so far back in the past which lead to the conclusion that he is likely to engage in or prepare to engage in such activities in the immediate future can be taken into account. In Golam Hussain alias Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Ors. (1974)4 SCC 530, this Court observed as follows: “5. No authority, acting rationally, can be satisfied, subjectively or otherwise, of future mischief merely because long ago the detenu had done something evil To Rule otherwise is to sanction a simulacrum of a statutory requirement. But no mechanical test by counting the months of the interval is sound. It all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason for the delay in taking preventive action, like information of participation being available only in the course of an investigation. We have to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case. Suffice it to say that in any case, incidents which are said to have taken place nine to fourteen years earlier, cannot form the basis for being satisfied in the present that the detenu is going to engage in, or make preparation for engaging in such activities. P a g e | 10 17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid detention order was passed on grounds which are stale and 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…” 17. For what has been held by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted case laws and having regard to what has been observed hereinabove, the impugned detention order does not sustain in the eyes of law. The impugned detention order passed on vague grounds, verbatim copy of police dossier and stale grounds with no live link between the alleged activities in the year 2017 and the detention order passed in the year 2025, is found liable to be quashed on these counts. 18. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed and the impugned detention order No. 06-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 29.04.2025, is, hereby quashed. As a result, the detenue namely Danish Farooq Bhat S/O Farooq Ahmad Bhat R/O Kulangam, Kupwara, is directed to be released from the custody forthwith, if not required in any other case(s). 19. HCP No. 237/2025 is, thus, disposed of as allowed along-with connected application(s). P a g e | 11 20. Detention record is directed to be returned back to the learned counsel for the respondents. ( M. A. CHOWDHARY ) JUDGE Srinagar 29.04.2026 Muzammil. Q Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No