HCP No. 328/2024 Page 1 of 4 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … HCP No. 328/2024 Reserved on: 21.08.2025 Pronounced on:03.09.2025 Showkat Ahmad Dar, Aged 32 years S/o Mohammad Yousuf Dar R/o Dogripora Tehsil Awantipora District Pulwama Through his Father Mohammad Yousuf Dar, Aged 69 years S/O Mohammad Ismail Dar R/o Dogripora Tehsil Awantipora, District Pulwama. ……...Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Asif Nabi, Advocate Versus 1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal Secretary, Home Department, J&K Government, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. District Magistrate, Pulwama 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Awantipora, Pulwama. ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed at the instance of the detenue by his father thereby, challenging detention order passed by District Magistrate Pulwama- respondent No. 2, bearing No. 34/DMP/PSA/24 dated 09.09.2024 for short impugned order, whereby detenue namely Showkat ahmad Dar, resident of Dogripora, district Anantnag, has been detained under Section-8 of the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, hereinafter for short as Act, on the ground that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of Security of the HCP No. 328/2024 Page 2 of 4 State and directed to be lodged at district Jail, Jammu (Kotbhalwal) where he is undergoing detention. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The detenue is stated to have been arrested by police Station Awantipora on 08.09.2024 allegedly for his involvement in case FIR No. 46/2021, whereafter, on 09.09.2024, detenue was taken to Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu, where he was handed over with the copies of the order of detention and grounds of detention, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama. Neither the detenue nor his family members were informed as to under what grounds the detenue has been arrested and subsequently detained under preventive detention. 3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 inter alia on the grounds, that the allegations are vague, have no nexus with the detenue; and material relied upon has not been supplied to the detenue in its entirety rendering him incapacitated to move a representation against his detention; the last alleged activity against the detenue is shown to be of the year 2021 while as the impugned order has been issued in the year 2024, three years later the date of last alleged activity; there is no specific allegation of how the detenue had propagated the militant ideology among the youth as an OGW of LeT; the detenue was bound down under Section 107/151 of Cr.PC (126/170 BNSS) after having been taken into custody and the detenue did not violate any of the conditions laid by the Executive Magistrate, Awantipora, while being bound down; the detenue had been granted bail in the FIR 46/2021 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, TADA/PORTA, Srinagar in terms of order dated 09.06.2022 and yet the impugned order was issued on the basis of the said FIR; the grounds of detention are the verbatim copy of the police dossier. HCP No. 328/2024 Page 3 of 4 4. Per contra the counter affidavit filed by the respondents reveals that the detenue has been validly and legally detained in terms of the impugned order; all statutory safeguards have been complied with, the detaining authority has applied its mind to the fact of the case; the grounds of detention are proximate; the averments made in the petition are legally misconceived, untenable and without any merit; the activities of the detenue are highlighted in the grounds of detention which are self-explanatory. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made and perused the material made available. 6. Admittedly the basis for issuance of the impugned order is the FIR 46/2021 registered by Police Station, Awantipora, involving no specific individual. The said FIR is admittedly, even if assumed to have been registered against the detenue only, yet there is no justification as to how an activity alleged to have been carried out in the year 2021 can form basis for invoking the provisions of preventive detention against the accused after three years inter-regnum. 7. The Apex Court has come down heavily on the functionaries of the State for issuing the detention orders on stale grounds in case titled “Khaja Bilal Ahmad vs. State of Telangana” reported as AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1808 has held as under: “If the pending cases were not considered for passing the order of detention, it defies logic as to why they were referred to in the first place in the order of detention. The purpose of the Telangana Offenders Act 1986 is to prevent any person from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For this purpose, Section 3 prescribes that the detaining authority must be satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to indulge in illegal activities in the future and act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The satisfaction to be arrived at by the detaining authority must not be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds. It must be arrived at on the basis of relevant HCP No. 328/2024 Page 4 of 4 material; material which is not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The order of detention may refer to the previous criminal antecedents only if they have a direct nexus or link with the immediate need to detain an individual. If the previous criminal activities of the Appellant could indicate his tendency or inclination to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, then it may have a bearing on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. However, in the absence of a clear indication of a causal connection, a mere reference to the pending criminal cases cannot account for the requirements of Section 3. It is not open to the detaining authority to simply refer to stale incidents and hold them as the basis of an order of detention. Such stale material will have no bearing on the probability of the detenu engaging in prejudicial activities in the future.” (bold in original) (underlining ours, for emphasis) (2020) 13 SCC 632.” 8. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case supra, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case in his favour that warrants indulgence. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order bearing No. 34/DMP/PSA/24 dated 09.09.2024 is quashed. The detenue namely Showkat Ahmad Dar S/o Mohammad Yousuf Dar R/o Dogripora Tehsil Awantipora District Pulwama is directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith if not required in any other case. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Srinagar 03.09.2025 “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 03.09.2025 23:18