HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 242/2024 Reserved on:- 29.07.2025 Pronounced on :- 22.08.2025 Zameer Ahmad Shah, S/o Mohd. Akbar Shah, R/o Nambal Mattan, District Anantnag through his father Mohd. Akbar shah, R/o Nambal Mattan, District Anantnag. …..Appellants Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate Vs 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. Secretary to Govt. Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu 2. District Magistrate, Anantnag. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag 4. Superintendent Central Jail Koth Bhalwal, Jammu .…. Respondents Through: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA vice Mr. Illyas Nazir Laway, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 22.08.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged impugned order of detention bearing No. 22/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Anantnag whereby he has been taken into preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. 2. The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that the allegations made in the grounds of detention as against him are vague, lacking in material particulars on the basis of which, it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation either before the District Magistrate or before the Government. It has been further Sr. No. 2 HCP No. 242/2024 contended that procedural safeguards have not been adhered to by the respondents in the present case inasmuch as, neither material on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated nor its translated version has been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the representation which the petitioner had made against the impugned order of detention has neither been considered by the respondents nor its result has been communicated to the petitioner. 3. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority/respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner was in touch with hybrid terrorists and other overground workers of terrorists so as to spread terror activities in the valley particularly in District Anantnag. It has been contended that the petitioner is deeply influenced with false anti-national narrative being patronized by the handlers sitting across the border who are hell bent to destabilize security of the State. It has been further submitted that activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to security of the State and normal law of the land was not capable to deter him from his nefarious activities which prompted the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention on the basis of material produced before the said authority by the sponsoring authority. 4. It has been submitted that the petitioner was supplied whole of the material on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated and its contents were read over and explained to him in the language he understands. He was also informed about his right to make representation 3 HCP No. 242/2024 against the order of detention. It has been further submitted that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board and his detention order has been confirmed by the Board. To support these contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the detention record produced by the respondents. 6. The first ground that has been urged by the petitioner for challenging impugned order of detention is that the allegations made in the grounds of detention against him are vague lacking in material particulars on the basis of which no person could have made a suitable representation. 7. In the above context, a perusal of the grounds of detention would reveal that there is a reference to FIR No. 29/2024 for offences under Section 8/20 UAP Act and 7/25 Arms Act, 3/4 Explosive Substance Act registered with Police Station, Anantnag. It has been submitted that the said FIR pertains to arrest of a hybrid terrorist of JeM outfit namely Waseem Ahmad Ganie S/o Bashir Ahmad Ganie R/o LukBhawan, Larkipora along with Arms and Ammunition and explosive material on 24.03.2024. It is recorded in the grounds of detention that during the investigation of the said case, few overground workers namely Fayaz Ahmad Dar, Imtiyaz Ahmad Ganie, Aashiq Hussain Mir, Ishfaq Ahmad Wani, Wilayat Aijaz Dar @ Akash, Waseem Ahmad Shah and Mujeeb Iqbal were brought for questioning during which they disclosed that they along with petitioner herein had remained in close contact with the above named hybrid terrorist so as to spread anti national activities in the area. It is recorded in the grounds of 4 HCP No. 242/2024 detention that evidence collected against the petitioner is not sufficient to book him in the case but his involvement in the case cannot be ruled out at the first sight. It is further recorded in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is deeply influenced with anti-national narrative. 8. From the aforesaid assertions made in the grounds of detention, it is clear that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he has been in touch with hybrid terrorist namely Waseem Ahmad Ganie who is prime accused in FIR No. 49/2024 of Police Station, Anantnag. There may not be enough material with the investigating agency for filing a Challan against the petitioner in the said FIR but the preventive detention can be resorted to even on the basis of suspicion. In the present case, police has interrogation reports of the main accused and his associates which point towards the involvement of the petitioner in anti-national activities. These interrogation reports may not be sufficient for producing a Challan against the petitioner in the Court of law but the detaining authority would be well within its jurisdiction to rely upon such reports for framing an opinion about the need to pass a detention order against the petitioner, which respondent No. 2 has done in the present case. Since there are specific assertions in the grounds of detention about activities of the petitioner and the reason why he is being booked under Public Safety Act, it can, by no stretch of reasoning, be stated that the petitioner has been taken into preventive detention on the basis of vague allegations. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit. 5 HCP No. 242/2024 9. Another contention that has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that whole of the material on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated has not been furnished to the petitioner. In this regard, a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the petitioner has been supplied total 21 leaves comprising detention order (01) leaf, notice of detention (01) leaf, grounds of detention (02) leaves, dossier of detention (03) leaves, copies of FIR, statement of witnesses and other relevant documents (14) leaves. In this regard, the petitioner has executed the receipt and as per the report of the executing authority, material has been explained to the petitioner in Urdu/Kashmiri languages. The material which has been relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the impugned order of detention comprises only these documents, therefore, whole of the material seems to have been supplied to the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that interrogation reports of accused who have named the petitioner should have been furnished to the petitioner and in the absence of such material, it cannot be stated that whole of the material has been furnished to the petitioner. In this regard, a perusal of the record would show that the petitioner has been furnished along with copy of FIR, the documents forming part of the investigation report in respect of hybrid terrorist namely Waseem Ahmad Ganie. These documents include statements of police officials in whose presence, the other witnesses to the Challan have named the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has not been furnished the actual material on the basis of which 6 HCP No. 242/2024 his involvement with the main hybrid terrorist-Waseem Ahmad Ganie is shown. 11. Lastly, it has been contended by the petitioner that the representation made by him against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents. In this regard, a perusal of the detention record would reveal that representation of the petitioner has been considered by the Advisory Board in its meeting dated 27.06.2024 in which the petitioner was heard in person through virtual mode. His representation was considered and rejected in his presence. Thus, it cannot be stated that there has been either any delay in considering the representation of the petitioner or that the result of consideration has not been communicated to him. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 22.08.2025 Tarun/P/S Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No Mahavir Singh 2025.08.22 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document