IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 05.06.2025 Pronounced on: 11.07.2025 HCP No.28/2023 MOHAMMAD SALEEM MIR ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. M. A. Makroo, Advocate. Vs. U T OF J&K & ANR. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Furqan Sofi, GA. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.51/DMP/PSA/23 dated 04.08.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama ( “the detaining authority”). In terms of the aforesaid order, Mohammad Saleem Mir ( “the detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in District Jail, Kathua, in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State. 2) The petitioner has contended that the procedural safeguards envisaged under the Constitution of India and the J&K Public Safety Act have not been complied with while passing the impugned order. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, obscure, indefinite and ambiguous and the same are based on stale incidents which have no proximate and P a g e | 2 live link with the detention order. It has been further contended that whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further 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 disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the 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 and that the representation made by the petitioner has been considered and rejected and result thereof has been conveyed to the petitioner. 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 parties and perused the record. P a g e | 3 5) The first ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of stale and old incidents having no proximate link with the impugned order of detention. 6) If we have a look at the grounds of detention, it has been mentioned therein that on 29.05.2022, on the basis of information relating to presence of terrorist, the Security Forces laid cordon of Village Gundipora, and during the cordon and search operation, there was exchange of firing between the terrorist and the Security Forces and in this encounter, two terrorists of JeM terrorists outfit were neutralized and arms/ammunition were recovered and in this regard, FIR No.151/2022 for offences under Section 307 IPC, 7/27 Arms Act and 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of UAP Act was registered and during investigation of the FIR, involvement of the petitioner in commission of the crime was established. It was found that the petitioner had provided transport facility to the terrorists in his Auto Load Carrier bearing registration No.JK13E- 7129 upto Village Gundipora on the same day. It is recorded in the said FIR that the petitioner was arrested and subsequently he was released on bail. The grounds of detention go on to allege that after the petitioner was enlarged on bail, he continued to render logistic support to the terrorists and facilitate their movement through unconventional and inaccessible routes. It is also alleged that the petitioner has acted as close source of active LeT terrorist Commander Riyaz Ahmad Dar and that at the instance of P a g e | 4 aforesaid terrorist, the petitioner is indulging in new recruitment into the LeT terrorist organization. 7) Thus, in the grounds of detention, it is clearly stated that even after his release on bail, the petitioner continued to indulge in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and in this regard there are specific instances given in the grounds of detention which are quite proximate to the date of passing of the impugned order of detention. Thus, it cannot be stated that there is no proximate link between the incidents on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated and the date of passing of the impugned order of detention nor can it be stated that the allegations against the petitioner are vague in nature. The contentions of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any merit. 8) The other contention that has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue. In this regard a perusal of execution report and the receipt of grounds of detention executed by the petitioner, which are available in the detention record, would reveal that the petitioner has received detention warrant and copy of grounds of detention comprising five leaves besides fourteen (14) more leaves relating to other material, meaning thereby that the petitioner has been furnished whole of the material which formed basis of the P a g e | 5 grounds of detention. The execution report further reveals that the contents of the aforesaid material have been read over and explained to the petitioner in Urdu, Hindi and Kashmiri languages.. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, not borne out from the material available in the detention record. 9) The next contention that has been raised by the petitioner is that the representation made by him against the impugned detention order has not been considered by the respondents. In this regard a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order has been received by the Government. The record further reveals that the said representation was placed before the Advisory Board in its meeting dated 24.08.2023 and the same has been considered and rejected. It is also revealed that the petitioner was heard through video conferencing by the Advisory Board and in his presence the representation was rejected. Even the representation made by the petitioner before the detaining authority has been considered and rejected by the said authority and the result of consideration has been conveyed to the petitioner vide communication dated 14.08.2023. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the representations of the petitioner were not considered or that the result of consideration was not conveyed to him. The contention raised by the petitioner in this regard is without any merit. P a g e | 6 10) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in 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 11.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.2025 02:51