HCP No.55/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 30.05.2025 Pronounced on: 04.07.2025 HCP No.55/2023 HILAL AHMAD PARRAY ...Petitioner(s) Through: - Ms. Saba Gulzar, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & anr. …Respondent(s) Through: -Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has assailed detention order bearing No.13/DMB/PSA of 2023 dated 24.07.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Bandipora (detaining authority). In terms of the aforesaid order, Hilal Ahmad Parray son of Gh. Ahmad Parray resident of Kochak Mohalla Hajin Tehsil Hajin District Bandipora has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. 2) The petitioner has contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent, on the basis of which no prudent man can make an effective representation. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material that formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been also contended that the representation submitted by the petitioner against his detention has not been considered, as no result of consideration thereof has been conveyed to the petitioner. It HCP No.55/2023 has been further urged that there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order as the detenue was already admitted to bail in some of the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention but the said fact is not mentioned in the grounds of detention. 3) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It has been further contended 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 also averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the 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. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds: (i) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the detenue has already been admitted to bail in FIR Nos. 47/2016, 52/2016 and 34/2017 registered with P/S Hajin, but this fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention. HCP No.55/2023 (ii) That representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents thereby violating his statutory and constitutional rights. 6) In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents has made an attempt to justify the passing of the order impugned by contending that the detenue is a habitual criminal, inasmuch he is involved in various criminal acts and, as such, the Detaining Authority was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of detention as there was every likelihood of the detenue indulging in similar activities. It has been further contended that all the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were, provided to the detenue and in token of having received the same, the detenue has signed the receipt. It is also urged that the contents of the documents were read over and explained to the detenue in the language understood by him. 7) So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, from a perusal of the material available on file, the ground regarding non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority appears to be forceful, inasmuch as the grounds of detention do not bear any reference to the fact that the petitioner had already been admitted to bail in FIR Nos. 47/2016, 52/2016 and 34/2017 registered with P/S Hajin in terms of the orders passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner has placed on record a copies of orders dated 18.06.2018, 17.09.2018 and 11.09.2018 passed by the concerned courts, whereby he has been enlarged on bail in the aforesaid cases, but this fact has not been made mention of in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority. The non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. This shows that the detaining authority has not HCP No.55/2023 meticulously examined the record while passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable in law. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 137, Rekha v. State of T.N. (2011) 5 SCC 244, and Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 2 SCC 72. 8) The next ground projected by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the that representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents thereby violating his statutory and constitutional rights. 9) The record produced by the respondents reveals that the representation of the petitioner had been placed before the Advisory Board but the same has been rejected on 23.08.2023. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the respondents had received the representation of the petitioner against the impugned order of detention but result thereof has not been conveyed to the petitioner. The respondents have not placed on record anything to show that the order of rejection of representation was conveyed to the petitioner. It is not coming forth from the record produced by the respondents as to whether the result of the representation has been conveyed to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others, (2021) 20 SCC 98, while dealing with the effect of failure to communicate the result of the representation has held that failure in timely communication of the rejection of the representation is a relevant factor for determining the delay that the detenue is protected under Article 22(5). It has been further held that failure HCP No.55/2023 of the government to communicate rejection of detenue’s representation in a time bound manner is sufficient to vitiate the detention order. 10) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required not required in connection with any other case. 11) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 04 .07.2025 "Bhat Altaf-Secy" Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No