Nizam Ud Din Najar vs Ut Of J&K & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 793 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Nizam Ud Din Najar vs Ut Of J&K & Ors on 21 February, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
                  LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

                                    Reserved on:  12.02.2025
                                    Pronounced on 21.02.2025

                       HCP No.136/2024

NIZAM UD DIN NAJAR                              ...Petitioner(s)
       Through: -Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate
Vs.

UT OF J&K & ORS                        ...Respondent(s)
       Through: -Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.

                             JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner

has challenged detention order bearing No.15/DMP/PSA/24

dated 04.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama-

respondent No.2, whereby Nizam-ud-Din Najar ("the

detenue"), has been placed under preventive detention with a

view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to

the security of the State. The order is, purportedly, passed by

the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under

Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

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 and cryptic in nature and the

same are based on stale incidents which have no proximate

and live link with the detention order. 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 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 detenue are highly

prejudicial to 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. 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) For assailing the impugned order of detention, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid much

emphasis on the following grounds:

(I) That the grounds of detention are vague, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation.

(II) That the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered nor result thereof has been conveyed to the petitioner.

(III) That whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner

(IV) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are replica of police dossier.

(V) That the grounds of detention are based upon stale incidents having no proximity and nexus with the impugned order of detention.

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

7) So far as the first ground of challenge urged by learned

counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the

same does not hold any merit. A perusal of the grounds of

detention reveals that there are allegations against the

petitioner that he provided shelter and logistic support to the

terrorists, namely, Musaib Mushtaq Bhat and Muzamil Nazir

Rather, who were neutralized by the security forces. It has

been alleged that the petitioner was providing every kind of

logistic support like shelter, food, information etc. to the

above-named terrorists. In the grounds of detention, it has

been clearly indicated that even after release of the petitioner

on bail in case FIR No.90/2020, he has again developed

relations with the terrorists of banned organization Lashkar-

e-Toiba. In the face of these specific allegations against the

petitioner in the grounds of detention, it cannot be stated that

the same are vague. The contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner in this regard is without any merit.

8) So far as second ground urged by learned counsel for

the petitioner is concerned, in this regard a perusal of the

detention record would reveal that the representation of the

petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board and the same

came to be rejected by the Board in its meeting on

23.04.2024. Similarly, the representation filed before the

District Magistrate has also been considered and rejected by

the said Authority. The result of consideration of the

representation has been conveyed to the petitioner by the

District Magistrate, Pulwama, vide his communication dated

1st May, 2024. Thus, it cannot be stated that the

representations of the petitioner were not considered nor can

it be stated that the result of consideration was not conveyed

to him. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is

without any merit.

9) That takes us to the contention of the petitioner that

whole of the material, on the basis of which impugned order

of detention has been passed, has not been furnished to him.

In this regard, a perusal of the detention record reveals that

the petitioner has executed a receipt in lieu of having received

material from the executing officer. As per the said receipt,

the petitioner is stated to have received detention order (01

leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03

leaves), dossier of detention (04 leaves), copies of FIR,

statements of witnesses and other related documents (13

leave), (total 22 leaves). Thus, entire material forming basis

of grounds of detention has been furnished to the petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this

regard is, therefore, without any merit.

10) The ground relating to non-application of mind on the

part of the detaining authority, that has been urged by

learned counsel for the petitioner, is also without any merit.

If we have a look at the dossier of the sponsoring agency and

the grounds of detention, the same by no means can be stated

to be in similar language. In the grounds of detention, the

District Magistrate has, after noticing the background facts,

clearly recorded his satisfaction that the activities of the

petitioner are highly prejudicial to the security of the State.

Even otherwise, mere fact that there is similarity in the

contents of the dossier and the grounds of detention does not

necessarily mean that there is non-application of mind on the

part of the detaining authority. If from a perusal of the

grounds of detention, it is otherwise shown that the detaining

authority has applied its mind to the material for recording

its and has recorded its subjective satisfaction as to the

imperative need of passing the order of detention, similarity

in the language of dossier and the grounds of detention would

11) Lastly, it has been argued by learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner has been booked on the basis of

the incidents which are stale and have no live and proximate

link with his imperative detention. In this regard if we have a

look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to incident

dated 20.08.2022. It is also indicated in the grounds of

detention that the petitioner was apprehended on 07.03.2024

under Section 107 Cr. P. C read with Section 151 of Cr. P. C

to prevent him from indulging in breach of peace and bond

was taken from him for maintaining good behaviour but after

his release he again developed contacts with the terrorists of

banned terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba. These

incidents have taken place as late as in March, 2024 and the

impugned order has been passed on 04.04.2024. Thus, it

cannot be stated that the petitioner has been booked as the

basis of stale incidents. The contention of learned counsel for

the petitioner is, therefore, without any substance.

12) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to

interfere with the impugned order of detention. The petition

lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.

13) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel

for the respondents.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 21.02.2025 "Bhat Altaf-Secy"

                                        Whether the order is reportable:    Yes/No