1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 292/2024 CM No. (3758/2025) Reserved on:11.09.2025 Pronounced on:18.09.2025 Salal Ahmad Ganie Alias Shakoor ……...Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate vice Mr. S. T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate. Versus Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Ruhi Jan sister of Salal Ahmad Ganie S/o Ghulam Qadir Ganie R/o Chidder Tehsil Qaimoh District Kulgam hereinafter for short as detenue, to challenge and seek quashment of the order bearing No. 21/DMK/PSA/2019 dated 27.05.2019, hereinafter for short as impugned order, issued by the respondent No. 2 District Magistrate Kulgam, whereby the detenue has been detained under the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. It is stated by the petitioner that the detenue has been falsely implicated in case FIR No. 27/2018 of P/S Devsar, FIR No. 107/2018 of Police Station Kulgam, FIR No. 116/2018 of Police 2 Station Kulgam and FIR No. 164/2018 of Police Station Qazigund. The detenue pursuant to his implication in the aforesaid cases sought and was granted bail by the competent courts of law, he was also acquitted of the charges levelled against him in case FIR No. 116/2018 after a full dressed trial by the Court of Special Judge Designated NIA at Kulgam in terms of Judgment dated 24.07.2024. 3. The detenue is stated to have been detained under preventive detention on the orders of respondent No. 2 despite his acquittal in case FIR No. 116/2018 of Police Station Kulgam and the enlargement of bail in the rest of the cases. It is averred in the petition that the impugned order came to be executed after more than five years of the date of its issuance i.e. in the year 2024 and lodged in Central Jail, (Kotbhalwal) Jammu. 4. It is further stated in the petition that the Photostat copies of impugned order, grounds of detention and letter dated 27.05.2019, were obtained by the petitioner unofficially on the basis whereof a representation for revocation of the impugned order was addressed on the ground that the impugned order has been executed five years later the date of its issuance, however, the same was not considered. 5. The impugned order has been assailed, being aggrieved of it, by the petitioner interalia on the grounds that there is an unreasonable and unexplained delay of over five years in execution of the impugned order which is in violation of article 21 of the Constitution of India; the impugned order appears to be based on malafides as the same 3 came to be issued only after the acquittal of the detenue in case FIR No. 116/2018; the impugned order is an outcome of non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority inasmuch as the detention order reflects the name of detenue as Shakoor Ahmad Ganie instead of Salal Ahmad Ganie; no fresh activity is attributed to the detenue in pursuance whereof the detaining authority issued the impugned order; the representation filed by the petitioner was not considered in violation of article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. There is no mention of the orders of bail having been granted in favour of the detenue in all the FIRs in which he is shown to be involved; the detaining authority has not spelled out the reasons as to why the ordinary law was not sufficient to prevent the detenue from repeating the similar kind of activities for which he was implicated in the FIRs supra. The detenue has not been provided the material on the basis whereof the impugned order came to be issued. 6. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed their counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the detenue was initially working as OGW for banned militant outfit LeT and later on became its active member; the impugned order is based on reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the detenue based on his past conduct; the detenue has been detained in pursuance of detention order No. 21/DMK/PSA/2019 dated 27.05.2019, has been named in civil FIRs of the year 2018 the last being FIR No. 164/2018 of Police Station Qazigund registered under Sections 13(2),18,19,38,39 ULA(P); the activities of the 4 detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of security of state and that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to deter the detenue from his nefarious activities; the respondent No. 2, after examining the material placed before it by the police agencies and the recommendations made thereof, derived a satisfaction that preventive detention of the detenue is needed; the detention order was approved by the government later; there is no vagueness or staleness in the grounds of detention; the procedural safeguards provided under the J&K Public Safety Act 1978 have been duly followed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made and perused the detention order made available. 8. The detenue has admittedly been put under preventive detention in the year 2024 by invoking the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act in terms of the impugned order issued by respondent No. 2 in the year 2019, which goes on to suggest that the impugned order of detention has been executed by the respondents after a lapse of five years of its issuance. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not controvert the plea of the petitioner that no documents were provided to the detenue or to the petitioner to enable them to move a representation against the impugned order, however, the execution report, forming part of the detention record, does reflect that the detenue has been furnished copy of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), dossier of detention (NIL) copies of FIR, statement of witnesses and 5 other relevant documents (04 leaves) total (08 leaves). The non- furnishing of the dossier is admitted by the respondents. There is a report of the advisory board dated 29.08.2024 which records that “no representation seems to have been made by the detenue as no such representation is lying on the material placed before us”. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to seek quashment of the impugned order while referring to various flaws of the impugned order like non-supply of the dossier, the non- consideration of representation, non-application of mind, however, she laid more stress on the factum of delayed execution of the impugned order. In support of her submissions the learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in case titled “Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana and Others” reported as (2023) 9 SCC 587. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order is legally sound and no infirmity or illegality is attached therewith. The learned counsel in support of his submissions referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in case titled “Santhamilselvi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another”, (2006) 5 SCC 676 and “Union of India Vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad, AIR 2019 SC 3428”. 11. The detenue has admittedly been detained under preventive detention in the year 2024 in terms of impugned order issued in the year 2019 on the basis of his alleged involvement in cases pertaining to the year 2018. The averments contained in the counter affidavit, insofar as it reflects the activities of the detenue to be 6 prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of state, pale into insignificance by their own record which unambiguously reflects the detention order of 2019 having been executed in the year 2024. The respondents have miserably failed to explain anywhere as to why the detention order of the detenue was executed with such a delayed dispatch of five years especially when they have taken a specific stand that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. The State functionaries cannot be expected to be casual in taking measures in cases where the serious allegations in respect of the security of state are alleged, however, the instant case is a glaring example of how loath they have been. It leads one to believe that either the allegations levelled against the individual were wholly fabricated or else the respondents were too callous to act. 12. The petitioner has successfully indicated that the respondents have not provided the entire material to the detenue to enable him to make effective representation against his detention as the respondents in their record are admitting that the copy of the dossier which is a vital piece of document has not been provided to the detenue. The Apex Court has consistently been holding that the safeguards provided by the constitution to those detained under preventive detention are required to be judiciously followed and any violation thereof would make the detention order unsustainable in law. The instant case would unambiguously reflect that many safeguards, like failure to furnish the entire detention record thereby affecting the right of effective representation; bail granted by the 7 competent Court of law not taken into consideration; the impugned order passed on stale grounds; there being no proximity between the allegations and the detenue; there is no live link between the activities and the impugned order; the impugned order being outcome of non-application of mind etc., provided by the Act itself have not been judiciously complied with, however, this Court would not go into such deliberations as the delayed execution of the impugned order is self-sufficient to render the impugned order inconsequential. 13. The Apex Court has in catena of authorities held that the detaining authority are under legal obligation to spell out the reasons for delayed execution of the preventive detention and in absence whereof the detention order cannot withstand the test of law. In the instant case the respondents have miserably failed to indicate any reasons not to speak of the sufficient reasons which formed basis for delayed execution of the impugned order. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in case titled “Mohammaed Farook v. Jt. Secy to .GOI and others, (2000) 2 SCC 360 and it would be profitable to reproduce paragraph No. 9 of the said judgment herein: “9.There is a catena of judgments on this topic rendered by this Court wherein this Court emphasized that the detaining authority must explain satisfactorily the inordinate delay in executing the detention order otherwise the subjective satisfaction gets vitiated. Since the law is well settled in this behalf we do not propose to 8 refer to other judgments which were brought to our notice.” 14. This Court in case titled “Imtiyaz Ahmed v. UT of J&K and others, HCP No.15/2024 decided on 05.11.2024, in Paragraph No. 22 has held as under: “22. From the above decisions of the Supreme Court, it becomes crystal clear that when there is no proximity or live link between the passing of the detention order and date of arrest of the detenue, it would render the detention order ineffective unless such delay is satisfactory explained.” CONCLUSION 24. In view of above, this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order No. 21/DMK/PSA/2019 dated 27.05.2019, passed by respondent No. 2 District Magistrate Kulgam, is quashed and set aside. The detenue namely Salal Ahmad Ganie S/o Ghulam Qadir Ganie R/o Chidder Tehsil Qaimoh District Kulgam is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 25. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents against receipt. 26. Disposed of along with all connected CM(s). (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Srinagar 18.09.2025 “Shaista” Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No. Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes/No. Shaista Rashid Shah I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.09.2025 13:34