IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 17.07.2025 Pronounced on: 25.07.2025 HCP No.329/2024 AMEER HAMZA SHAH ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Ms. Heena Baqal, Advocate. Vs. U T OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, GA. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.18/DMB/PSA of 2024 dated 11.09.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Bandipora (the detaining authority”). In terms of the aforesaid order, Shri Ameer Hamza Shah son of Gh. Mohi- u-din Shah resident of Quil Muqam Tehsil Aloosa District Bandipora (for short “the detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu, in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been issued in breach of the mandate of law as declared by the Supreme Court and by this Court. It has been contended that the detaining authority has not followed the constitutional and P a g e | 2 statutory procedural safeguards and has not derived subjective satisfaction while passing the impugned order, which is sine quo non for passing an order of detention. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, irrelevant and non-existent, bereft of specific details and the same are based on stale incidents which have no proximate and 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 thereby disabling him from making an effective representation against his detention. 3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 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. 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. P a g e | 3 4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case including the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents. 5) The first ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for challenging the impugned order of detention is that the representation made against the said order on behalf of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents nor its result has been conveyed to him. In this regard, a perusal of the detention record produced by the respondents reveals that the representation on behalf of the petitioner field through his son has been received by the Government, a copy whereof is available in the detention record. It is also revealed that the said representation was placed before the Advisory Board and the same was considered by the Board in its meeting dated 22.10.2024. It is further revealed that the petitioner was given a personal hearing through virtual mode while considering his representation and it was rejected by the Board in his presence. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his representation has not been considered by the respondents and that its result has not been conveyed to him is without any substance. 6) Next it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the grounds of detention reference has been made to past incidents pertaining to the years 2006 to 2021 and there is no mention of any fresh activity in the grounds of P a g e | 4 detention. It has been contended that on the basis of the alleged past activities of the petitioner, he was subjected to preventive detention in terms of detention order No.16/DMB/PSA of 2021 dated 20.10.2021 and the said order came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of WP(Crl) No.303/2021 which was allowed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 27.04.2022. According to the learned counsel, after quashing of the earlier detention order dated 20.10.2021 on 27.04.2022, the petitioner is not stated to have indulged in any fresh activity that would have warranted his preventive detention. 7) If we have a look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to as many as 16 FIRs in which the petitioner is shown to be involved. It is indicated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was detained multiple times in these 16 FIRs registered against him and he succeeded in getting bail in all these FIRs. It is further stated that after the release of the petitioner on bail, he again indulged in anti-national activities which compelled the respondents to pass an order of preventive detention against him but the same was quashed by this Court. Thereafter the petitioner was again detained on 12.07.2023 and was released on 11.07.2024 after the expiry of detention period. The grounds of detention go on to allege that after release of the petitioner from detention, he did not distance himself from Tehreek-e-Hurriyat, which has been declared as an unlawful association in terms of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It has been further alleged that the P a g e | 5 petitioner has continued to organize meetings of people having separatist ideologies with a view to revive separatist activities. It is alleged that the petitioner has raised pro-Pakistani flags and arranged stage for anti-national activities. 8) From the above it is clear that the respondent District Magistrate, while formulating the grounds of detention, has furnished sufficient particulars about the alleged fresh activities of the petitioner in which he has indulged after his release from detention in the year 2024. Thus, it cannot be stated the grounds of detention do not disclose any fresh activities involving the petitioner which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without any substance. 9) Another contention that has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, inasmuch as grounds of detention are replica of dossier. 10) A perusal of the grounds of detention would clearly reveal that excepting the narration of incidents in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved, there is nothing common between the two documents. The detaining authority has, after narrating the past incidents in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved, clearly recorded the particulars about the fresh activities of the petitioner and has drawn a satisfaction that such activities P a g e | 6 of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there has been non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention. 11) It has been contended that the petitioner has not been provided whole of the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated. In this regard, a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the petitioner has been furnished a total of 99 leaves comprising copies of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention order (o1 leaf), grounds of detention (04 leaves), dossier of detention (05 leaves), copies of FIRs, statements of witnesses and other related documents (88 leaves). Thus, the petitioner has been furnished whole of the material which includes copies of 16 FIRs for which the he has been booked so far. In this regard the petitioner has executed receipt and the executing official has sworn an affidavit declaring therein that the whole of the material was furnished to the petitioner and the contents of the same were read over and explained to him in Kashmiri/Urdu languages. The contention raised by the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, contradicted by the detention record. 12) Lastly, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2022 passed in WP(Crl) No.303/2021 had quashed the detention of the petitioner which was based on similar grounds and, as such, it was P a g e | 7 not open to the respondents to detain him again on the same grounds. In this regard, it is to be noted that the earlier detention order dated 20.10.2021 was quashed by this Court on technical ground of non-furnishing of entire material to the petitioner and not on merits of the grounds of detention. In any case, after the release of the petitioner from preventive detention, he has again indulged in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Reference to these activities has been made hereinbefore. Therefore, merely because the earlier detention order was quashed by this Court cannot form a basis for quashing the impugned detention order passed by the detaining authority. 13) 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. 14) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 25.07.2024 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.07.2025 03:19