Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Tahid Ahmad Tarray vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir And ... on 14 October, 2025

Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

                                       1


       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT SRINAGAR
                           ...

                             HCP No. 246/2024

                                                     Reserved on: 19.09.2025
                                                   Pronounced on:15.10.2025

Tahid Ahmad Tarray
                                                           .........Petitioner(s)
                              Through:
                       Ms. Nusrat Razak, Advocate.

                                Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others.
                                                           ......Respondent(s)
                                Through:
                    Mr. Illiyas Nazir Laway, GA.

CORAM:

      HON'BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

                              JUDGMENT

The instant petition has been filed by Mst. Aisha mother of Tahid

Ahmad Parray, S/o Ali Mohammad Tarray R/o Sheetipora, Bijbehara, District

Anantnag, for short „detenue‟ thereby seeking quashment of the detention

order No. 12/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 20.04.2024 hereinafter for short to

be referred as impugned order, issued by the respondent No. 2, District

Magistrate, Anantnag, Kashmir, thereby detaining the detenue under the

provisions of Section (8) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, on the ground

that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of Security of the State

and directed to be lodged at Central Jail, Jammu Kothbhalwal.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. The detenue, by the impugned order, has been put under preventive

detention by respondent No. 2 for the security of the State. The ground

taken in support of such detention by the detaining authority find its

origin in FIR No. 219/2022 of Police Station, Anantnag, registered

against the detenue for the commission of offences punishable in terms

of Sections 120-B, 130 IPC, & 18, 39 of Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, respectively and the detenue is facing trial in the said

case before the competent Court of jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 inter

alia on the grounds, that the impugned order has been issued without

any cause and justification of law; the detenue has been falsely alleged

to be working as Over Ground Worker (OGW) for the terrorists of

banned terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and the allegations

levelled in the grounds of detention are related to the year 2022, till

date more than two years have lapsed and the conduct of the detenue

has remained sober during the trial of the case; the detaining authority

has passed the order of detention with complete non-application of

mind as it does not specify as to how the ordinary criminal law could

not have been effective against the detenue; the detaining authority has

not assigned the compelling reasons for passing the order of detention

in respect of the detenue; the allegations levelled in the grounds of

detention against the petitioner are vague, irrelevant and non-existent,

therefore, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority

is not based on proximate or relevant material; the impugned detention

order stands vitiated as it is founded upon false and frivolous grounds

lacking any real nexus with the detenue; the detenue was involved in

case FIR No. 219/2022 on the basis of animosity and ill-will and the

detenue is fully cooperating with the police authorities and is

presenting himself before the Court of competent jurisdiction; the

detention order has been passed without following the constitutional

and statutory procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of

the Constitution of India; the detention material relied upon has not

been supplied to the detenue in its entirety as he has been provided only

a copy of grounds of detention rendering him debilitated to move an

effective representation against his detention; the order of detention is

based upon the cogent material which could necessitate the passing of

the order of detention; the.

3. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and resisted the claim of the

petitioner by filing the counter affidavit stating inter-alia therein that; the

detenue has been validly and legally detained in terms of the impugned

order; the activities of the detenue are highlighted in the grounds of

detention which are self-explanatory; the detenue was a well known

OGW of LeT and was a close associates of killed terrorist Uzair Khan of

LeT outfit; the detenue was providing every support/information to the

outfit of LeT terrorists; the detenue has been validly and legally detained

in terms of the impugned order; all statutory safeguards have been

complied with, the detaining authority has properly applied its mind to

the fact of the case as the detenue had been nurturing the secessionist

ideology and was motivating others to follow the suit; the grounds of

detention are proximate relevant and valid.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the

submissions and perused the material made available.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken several grounds in

support of the petition to challenge and seek quashment of the impugned

order primarily being non-furnishing of entire detention material to the

detenue to enable him to make an effective representation against his

detention, the non-consideration of the representation of the detenue and

there being no nexus between the alleged activities and the detenue.

6. The detention record made available would indicate that the detenue has

been furnished in as many as 23 leaves of detention documents

comprising copies of detention order (01 leaf), Notice of detention (01

Leaf), grounds of detention (02 Leaves), Dossier of detention (03 Leaves)

Copies of FIR, Statement of Witnesses and other relevant documents (16

Leaves), therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the detenue was not supplied the entire detention material is belied

by the records, therefore, is turned down.

7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-

supply of the detention material to the detenue has prevented him from

making an effective representation against his detention, in view of the

findings returned in para-6 supra, also looses significance and is

accordingly rejected.

8. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

representation filed against the detention of the detenue has not been

considered is also of no help to the petitioner as the detention record

would show that the representation of the petitioner has been considered

and rejected being without merit in terms of communication dated

28.08.2024 issued by Deputy Secretary to Government, Home

Department addressed to District Magistrate, Anantnag.

9. The submissions made in respect of the involvement of the detenue in a

case which is two years older to the date of impugned order does not

have much appeal in it as the material placed before the Court does

reflect in unambiguous terms the continuous involvement of the detenue

in the alleged nefarious activities even after the registration of FIR

against his name. The detenue is shown to have disclosed his anti-social

activities that he has indulged in, in the year 2023 as well suggesting

nothing but his undeterred commitment to the activities prejudicial to the

maintenance of security of state.

10. The Apex Court in case titled "Union of India v. Dimple Happy

Dhakad" reported as AIR 2019 SC 3428 has held as under:

"41. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, in Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and others (2005) 8 SCC 276, it was held as under:-

"8. It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent the antisocial and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquility or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford

protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so.........".

42. Considering the scope of preventive detention and observing that it is aimed to protect the safety and interest of the society, in State of Maharashtra and others v. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande (2008) 3 SCC 613, it was held as under:-

"36. Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand. Security of State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community, prevention of smuggling and black marketing activities, etc. demand effective safeguards in the larger interests of sustenance of a peaceful democratic way of life.

37. In considering and interpreting preventive detention laws, courts ought to show greatest concern and solitude in upholding and safeguarding the fundamental right of liberty of the citizen, however, without forgetting the historical background in which the necessity-- an unhappy necessity--was felt by the makers of the Constitution in incorporating provisions of preventive detention in the Constitution itself. While no doubt it is the duty of the court to safeguard against any encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, at the same time the authorities who have the responsibility to discharge the functions vested in them under the law of the country should not be impeded or interfered with without justification (vide A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271, Bhut Nath Mete v. State of W.B. (1974) 1 SCC 645, State of W.B. v. Ashok Dey (1972) 1 SCC 199 and ADM v. Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521)."

11. This Court is convinced that the impugned detention order has not been

passed mechanically by the respondents but is an outcome of proper

application of mind and the material placed before this Court by the

respondents does reflect the necessity of invoking the provisions of

preventive detention against the detenue.

CONCLUSION

12. In view of above the petition being without merit is dismissed and the

impugned detention order No. 12/DMA/PSA/DET/2024, dated

20.04.2024 passed by respondent No. 2, is maintained.

13. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents

against receipt.

(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Srinagar 15.10.2025 "Shaista"