HCP 351/2024 P a g e | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP 351/2024 Reserved on: 21.08.2025 Pronounced on: 04:09 :2025 BILAL AHMAD SHALLA, AGED 22 YEARS S/O GHULAM QADIR SHALLA R/O STADIUM COLONY TEHSIL BARAMULLA DISTRICT BARAMULLA …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate Vs. 1. UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, THORUGH, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, J&K GOVT., CIVIL SECTT. SRINAGAR/JAMMU 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BARAMULLA 3. SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BARAMULLA ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI,JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is assailing Order No.33/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 16.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, whereby Bilal Ahmad Shalla @ Jana, aged 23 years, son of Ghulam Qadir Shalla, resident of Stadium Colony, Tehsil Baramulla, District Baramulla (hereinafter referred to as “the detenue”), has been detained under the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short, “the Act”) on the grounds of acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of U.T. OF J&K. HCP 351/2024 P a g e | 2 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the detenue is a peace- loving citizen who has never indulged in any subversive activity. He was falsely implicated in FIR No.156/2022 registered at Police Station Baramulla. The detenue was admitted to bail by the competent court on 15.12.2022. Ever since his release, he has been living peacefully. However, in the last week of May 2024, he was called to Police Station Baramulla, detained there, and subsequently shifted to District Jail Udhampur pursuant to the impugned order under the provisions of the Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order inter alia on the grounds; that there is no nexus between the allegations and the detenue, who has been falsely implicated; the impugned order has been issued mechanically, without proper application of mind, as the detenue has never associated himself with any person or organisation mentioned in the grounds of detention; the allegations in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent, and rendering the detenue to make an effective representation against the same; there is no specific allegation against the detenue in the entire grounds of detention; hence, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is clouded; there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority; that the last alleged activity attributed to the detenu has taken place in the year 2022 in which the detenue was arrested, granted bail, and later bound down under Section 107 Cr.P.C., without any subsequent violation alleged; the impugned order came to be passed nearly two years later; that the impugned order does not mention that the detenue was granted bail; HCP 351/2024 P a g e | 3 that no compelling reasons have been spelled out by the detaining authority justifying issuance of the detention order; the impugned order is a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, which again indicates non-application of mind; the representation filed by the petitioner against the detention of the detenue was not considered within the stipulated time, nor was the detenue provided with the entire material relied upon while ordering his detention. 4. Upon notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit opposing the petition. They have, inter alia, contended that the averments made by the petitioner are baseless; the detenue has been found involved in anti-national activities and possesses a criminal bent of mind; that the detaining authority, after due consideration of the material on record, was satisfied regarding the detenue’s involvement; the detenue posed a potential threat to the maintenance of public order; that all statutory safeguards under the Act, including the one provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, have been strictly followed; the entire material relied upon was supplied to the detenue within the period prescribed under Section 13 of the Act; and that the detenue was informed of his right to make a representation against the detention order. 5. I have heard leaned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions and perused the impugned order. 6. It transpires from the detention records that the detenue has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 58/2018 and FIR No. 156/2022 registered at Police Station Baramulla. In FIR No. 156/2022, the competent court of law granted bail to the detenue. Notwithstanding HCP 351/2024 P a g e | 4 the grant of bail, respondent No. 2 subsequently ordered the preventive detention of the detenue on the very same allegations forming the basis of the aforesaid FIRs, including FIR No. 156/2022. 7. The perusal of the detention record would further reveals that the detaining authority has not mentioned as to what was the compelling circumstances that weighed with the detaining authority to order preventive detention of the detenue and as to why the substantive laws were insufficient to deter the detenue from indulging in the alleged subversive activities. 8. The non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is writ large on the face of the record as the detaining authority not only has failed to record as to why the preventive detention of the detenue was warranted despite his release on bail in the same case in which he was sought to be detained, but has also failed to even maintain such a fact in the counter affidavit. 9. 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 HCP 351/2024 P a g e | 5 arrived at on the basis of relevant 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.” 10.The Apex Court in case titled “Jai Singh and Ors. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir” reported as AIR1985 SC 764 has observed that if the detention order is verbatim copy of the dossier, it speaks about non-application of mind by detaining authority. The liberty of a subject is a serious matter and it is not to be trifled in this casual, indifferent and routine manner. 11.The court is convinced that the petitioner has been able to prove that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while issuing the impugned order and since the petitioner has succeeded in proving his case on the factum of non-application of mind, there is no need to go into other grounds of the challenge. 12.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 HCP 351/2024 P a g e | 6 allowed and assailing Order No.33/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 16.05.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, whereby Bilal Ahmad Shalla @ Jana, aged 23 years, son of Ghulam Qadir Shalla, resident of Stadium Colony, Tehsil Baramulla, District Baramulla has been detained, is quashed and the respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith. 13.Detention record be returned back. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 04-09-2025 Mubashir 1. Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes/No 2. Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No