Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Safeer Ahmad Bhat vs U T Of J&K & Anr on 1 August, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 01.07.2025
Pronounced on: 01.08.2025
HCP No.89/2024
SAFEER AHMAD BHAT ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawaja, Advocate.
Vs.
U T OF J&K & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner has assailed order of detention bearing
No.04/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 27.01.2024, issued by District Magistrate,
Baramulla. In terms of the impugned order, Safeer Ahmad Bhat @Safeer
Molvi has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of
the UT of J&K.
2) The petitioner has contended that there has been non-application
of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned
detention order. It has been further contended that the procedural
safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also
been urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds
of detention are vague and that whole of the material that formed basis
of grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue. It
Page |2
has also been contended that there were no compelling reasons for the
detaining authority to pass the impugned order.
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 maintenance of
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 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 contended 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 the parties and perused record of
the cases including the detention record.
5) The main ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the
petitioner for impugning the detention order passed against the petitioner
is that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to
pass the impugned order, inasmuch as no fresh activity has been alleged
in the grounds of detention against the petitioner after his release from
preventive custody.
Page |3
6) In the above context, a perusal of the grounds of detention reveals
that there is a reference to detention order bearing No.17/DMB/PSA/
2021 dated 20.10.2021 which was assailed by the petitioner in WP(Crl)
No.2902/2021. A perusal of the record reveals that the said petition was
allowed on 19.09.2023, whereby the aforesaid detention order was
quashed. It has been mentioned in the grounds of detention that after
being released from the preventive custody, the petitioner re-activated
his contacts and remained in close touch with terrorists of different
organizations to carry out the terrorist/secessionist activities.
7) In the grounds of detention after narrating the past antecedents, the
detaining authority has expressed apprehension that the petitioner may
again indulge in subversive activities and continue his support to the
terrorists. On this basis, the detaining authority has drawn satisfaction
that if the petitioner is not taken into preventive custody, he may become
a potential threat to the maintenance of security of the UT of J&K. The
question that arises for determination is as to whether it was open to the
detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention only on the
basis of the past conduct of the petitioner without there being mention of
any fresh activity after the release of petitioner from preventive custody.
8) The Supreme Court has, in the case of Rameshwar Shaw vs.
District Magistrate, Burdwan & anr. (AIR 1964 SC 334), held that in
deciding the question as to whether it is necessary to detain the person,
the detaining authority has to be satisfied that if such person is not
detained, he may act in a prejudicial manner. This conclusion can be
Page |4
drawn by the detaining authority in the light of the evidence placed
against the said person which has to be examined by the detaining
authority and an independent decision thereon has to be taken.
9) Thus, past conduct of a detenue has to be taken into account while
drawing an inference whether such person is likely to act in a manner
prejudicial either to maintenance of public order or security of the State.
Such conduct of the detenue should have a proximate link to the date of
passing of the order of detention and the detaining authority has to draw
a satisfaction that there are compelling reasons for passing a detention
order against such person.
10) In the grounds of detention, no reference has been made to any
incident involving the petitioner after his release from preventive
detention on 19.09.2023. Thus, the gap between the previous incident, in
which the petitioner was found to be involved, and the date of passing of
the impugned order of detention is far too large to presume a connection
11) Apart from the above, the record reveals that after the release of
petitioner on 19.09.2023, he was proceeded against in terms of Section
107/151 of Cr. P. C and was bound down by the Executive Magistrate
from committing of breach of peace and disturbing public tranquillity.
The detaining authority has not mentioned as to in which prejudicial
activities the petitioner has indulged either after his release on bail or
after he had executed the bond in the proceedings under Section 107/151
of Cr. P. C. Merely making reference to involvement of the petitioner in
Page |5
past activities without indicating anything about his involvement in fresh
activities prejudicial either to the maintenance of public order or security
of the State/UT which necessitated his preventive detention under Public
Safety Act in terms of the impugned order, it cannot be stated that there
were any compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the
impugned order of detention. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the
respondents were justified in passing the impugned order of detention.
12) From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that there is no proximate
and live link between the facts referred to in the grounds of detention and
the detention of the petitioner in terms of the impugned order of
detention. It is also clear that there were no compelling circumstances
for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention in the
absence of fresh activities attributable to the petitioner. Thus, the
impugned detention order is not sustainable in law.
13) For the foregoing discussion, 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.
14) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the
respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
01.08.2025
"Bhat Altaf-Secy"
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
