HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on 21.05.2026 Pronounced on:05.06.2026 Uploaded on: 05.06.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full HCP No. 172/2025 Tawqeer Ahmad Mir …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Rehana Fayaz, Adv. and Mr. Anurag Verma, Adv. Q vs Union Territory of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Furqan Sofi, GA Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged order No. 23/DMP/PSA/2025 dated 03.05.2025, whereby, the petitioner, namely, Tawqeer Ahmad Mir, has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to him, as a result of which, his constitutional right guaranteed under section 22(5) of the Constitution has been rendered ineffective. 3. It has further been contended that the grounds of detention are based on stale incidents, which date back to two years prior to the passing of the impugned order of detention. It has been submitted that there is no live or proximate HCP No. 172/2025 link between the incidents referred to in the grounds of detention and need to issue the order of detention. It has also been contended that the assertions made in the grounds of detention are vague and general in nature lacking in material particulars, as such, it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation on the basis of such allegations. It has also been contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed in a routine and mechanical manner, without there being any material or justification for passing the said order. The petitioner has further contended that the representation dated 10.05.2025 has been rejected by District Magistrate Pulwama vide its order dated 12.05.2025 in a mechanical manner. 4. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing reply thereto. In the counter affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority, it has been submitted that all statutory requirements and constitutional safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution have been fulfilled and complied with by the Detaining Authority. It has been submitted that whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention have been furnished to the petitioner regarding which, he has executed a receipt. It has also been submitted that the contents of grounds of detention were read over and explained to the petitioner in the language which he understands and he was also informed about his right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention. It has further been submitted that the order of detention has been passed after proper application of mind on the basis of the material placed before the Detaining Authority by the sponsoring agency. It has been submitted that there is no vagueness or staleness in the grounds of detention. HCP No. 172/2025 In order to lend support to its contentions, the Detaining Authority has produced the detention record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, including the detention record produced by the respondents. 6. So far as ground projected by the petitioner with regard to non supply of material forming basis of grounds of detention is concerned, the same is contradicted by the material available in the detention record. As per the receipt executed by the petitioner, which is available in the detention record, it appears that he has been supplied a total number of 36 leaves comprising notice of detention (one leaf), order of detention (one leaf), grounds of detention (three leaves), Police dossier (six leaves), FIR copies (one leaf), seizure memo, arrest memo etc. (five leaves), statements of witnesses(three leaves), bound down papers (two leaves). Besides this, the petitioner has also been provided Urdu version of Police dossier and Urdu version of grounds of detention. Thus, the Detaining Authority has not only provided the whole material, which forms basis of the grounds of detention to the petitioner, but he has also been provided translated version of grounds of detention and Police dossier. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any basis. 7. The second contention that has been raised by the petitioner is that impugned order of detention is based on stale incidents and the assertions made therein are vague. In this regard, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it provides reference to the incident of June 2022 which became the basis for registering FIR 71/2022 for offences under Sections 302, 7/27 Arms Act, 16, 18, 20, 23 and 38, 39 UA(P) Act with Police Station, Pampore. As per HCP No. 172/2025 grounds of detention, the petitioner was released on bail in the said FIR on 10.07.2024. The reference to the incident, which is subject matter of aforesaid FIR, has been made by the Detaining Authority only with a view to demonstrate the past conduct of the petitioner, which has a definite bearing on assessment of his future conduct. Therefore, the reference to these past activities of the petitioner in the grounds of detention is not out of context, but it has a definite nexus with the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. 8. In the grounds of detention, it has been clearly reflected that after the release of the petitioner on bail, the petitioner continued to indulge in similar activities which compelled the authorities to obtain bond for keeping security and good behaviour on as many as two occasions viz on 04.02.2025, and on 23.04.2025 under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. This clearly reflects that even after the release of the petitioner on bail, he continued to indulge in activities which were posing threat to the peace and security of the area, as a result of which, the authorities were compelled to obtain bond from the petitioner on two occasions. In the grounds of detention, it is also mentioned that even after execution of the bond, the petitioner continued to carry out his activities which were prejudicial to the security of the State by extending logistic support to the terrorists of the Laksher-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Thus, the Detaining Authority was justified in passing the impugned order of detention. 9. The acts which led to registration of FIR No. 71/2022 are stated to have been committed by the petitioner at a time when he was a juvenile, cannot form HCP No. 172/2025 a basis for his preventive detention but these activities can certainly be taken into account by Detaining Authority for the purpose of drawing a satisfaction with regard to the background of the petitioner and his propensity to indulge in subversive activities. For this limited purpose, it is definitely open to the Detaining Authority to take into account the prejudicial activities of the petitioner, which he has indulged in while he was juvenile, though the same by themselves cannot form a basis for passing an order of preventive detention. Once it is shown that the petitioner even as a juvenile had the propensity to indulge in subversive activities and after attaining the age of majority, he continued to indulge in similar activities, the Detaining Authority would be well within its jurisdiction to pass an order of detention against such person on the basis of the activities which he has committed after attaining the age of majority. 10. The ground regarding vagueness of allegations projected by the petitioner is also without any basis because it has been clearly indicated in the grounds of detention that on 04.02.2025 and 23.04.2025, the petitioner was bound down but in spite of this, he continued to indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. Thus, there are specific assertions made in the grounds of detention with dates on which the petitioner is stated to have been bound down and in spite thereof, he has indulged in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any basis. 11. Regarding the non-mentioning of reasons in the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner, it is to be noted that in this regard, the District Magistrate has passed a reasoned order on 12.05.2025, whereby the HCP No. 172/2025 representation of the petitioner has been rejected. In the said order, it has been clearly mentioned that there is no change of circumstances that would warrant revocation of the detention order. The Detaining Authority cannot be expected to write a reasoned judgment, while dealing with the representation of a detenue. While deciding representation of a detenue, the concerned Authority has to apply its mind to the material placed before it and the same should be reflected in the order that may be passed by the Authority. In the present case, the order passed by the District Magistrate on 12.05.2025 clearly reflects application of mind on his part. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is without any substance. 12. For what has been said, analysed and discussed hereinabove, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 05.06.2026 Rakesh PS Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No