IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 21.05.2025 Pronounced on: 04.07.2025 HCP No.336/2024 AB. MAJID SHAH ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Asif Nabi, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Furqan Yaqub Sofi, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.38/DMP/PSA /24 dated 13.09.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama- respondent No.2. In terms of the aforesaid order, Ab. Majid Shah (“the detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention 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 detaining authority has issued the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards 2 HCP No.336/2024 have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It 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 the FIR, mention whereof has been made in the grounds of detention. 3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of 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 contents of the same were read over and explained to him; 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. 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: 3 HCP No.336/2024 (I) That the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation against his detention. (II) That the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, on the basis of which no prudent person can be expected to make an effective representation. 6) 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 No.53/2023 registered with P/S Pulwama in terms of the order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. The non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. This shows that the detaining authority has not 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 judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 137. 7) On perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents, the ground projected regarding vagueness of the averments made in the grounds of detention, appears to be forceful. In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of the alleged OGWs, Pak handlers and terrorists, with whom the petitioner has met who allegedly brainwashed him. The particulars of the period when the detenue is alleged to have met these 4 HCP No.336/2024 OGWs etc. are also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds, being vague and lacking in material particulars, the detenue could not have made an effective representation against his detention. Therefore, there has been violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detention order, as such, is illegal and unsustainable. In my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case e of Jahangirkhan Fazal Khan Pathan vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmadabad, (1989) 3 SCC 590, Abdul Razak Nanekhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmadabad, AIR 1989 SC 2265, Mohd. Yousuf Rather vs. State of J&K & Ors, 1979 4 SCC 370, and Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. The Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Ors. 1989 (1) Crimes 176 (SC). 8) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 9) The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 04.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No