IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 04.07.2025 Pronounced on: 25.04.2025 WP(Crl) No.801/2022 SUHAIL BASHIR SHERGOJRI ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. R. A. Khan, Advocate. Vs. U T OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - None. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.DMS/PSA/86/ 2022 dated 30.08.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar. In terms of the aforesaid order, Shri Suhail Bashir Shergojri @Suhail 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 security of the State. 2) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been issued 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 safeguards provided under law have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the P a g e | 2 impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered. 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 security of the State. 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. 4) Despite opportunities, the respondents have not produced the detention record. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6) 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 ground that whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner. P a g e | 3 7) The respondents have not brought on record anything that would suggest that the material relied upon by the detaining authority and transmitted to him by the concerned sponsoring agency has been furnished to the petitioner. Obviously, the petitioner has been hampered by non- supply of the material in making an effective representation against his detention. Thus, vital safeguards against arbitrary use of law of preventive detention have been observed in breach by the respondents in this case rendering the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law. Furnishing of whole of the material is a necessary requirement for enabling the detenue to make an effective representation against the order of detention. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & ors (AIR 1999 SC 3051), Thahira Haris etc. etc. Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors (AIR 2009 SC 2184) and Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti alias Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Kandar Ahmad Wagher alias Iqbal alias Gulam Vs. State of Gujarat and others”, (1982) 3 SCC 440. 8) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 25.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.07.2025 03:19