The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 can be quashed due to non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority and inordinate delay in executing the detention order, as supported by legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. The District Magistrate, Anantnag vide his Order No. 52/DMA/PSA/DET/2021, dated 13.01.2022, detained Imtiyaz Ahmad Lone S/o Mohammad Dilawar Lone under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This order of detention is assailed by the detenue through his father, Mohammad Dilawar Lone.

2. The contention of the detenue is that the Detaining Authority has passed the order of detention without any application of mind. The order of detention amongst others has been challenged by the detenue on the grounds that; (i) the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against the same. (ii) the allegations reflected in the grounds of detention are vague and do not justify the passing of detention order on the basis of such allegations. (iii) the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, which is a pre-requisite for passing any detention order. (iv) the grounds of detention are replica of the police dossier and clearly depicts the non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. (v) the detenue had not been furnished all the relevant material like copy of the dossier and other connected material relied upon by the Detaining Authority, while passing the order of detention and the same had prevented the detenu from making an effective representation. (vi) the detenue was arrested in FIR No. 65 of 2021 and was released on bail but this has not been noticed by the Detaining Authority, as such, there is non-application of mind. (vii) there is delay in execution of the detention order which has casts a shadow of doubt on the necessities of same and this has rendered the detention invalid.

3. Ms. Insha Rashid, learned G.A has filed a counter affidavit as well as produced the detention record.

4. It is submitted by her that the detenue was detained under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 validly by virtue of detention order dated 13.01.2022, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag. The Detaining Authority has complied with all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees as provided to the detenue under law while keeping in view the object of the law of preventive detention. All the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority had been provided to the detenue incompliance to the detention order. It is further submitted by him that the very object of law of preventive detention is not punitive and the detenu has been detained by Detaining Authority after considering all the material, while arriving at its requisite subjective satisfaction. The detenu has also been provided all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the detenue was arrested in FIR No. 65 of 2021 under Sections 11, 13 and 18 of the ULA(P) Act and this fact has also been noticed in the grounds of detention passed by the Detaining Authority, however, the detenue was released on bail by the Court of Special Judge (designated Court under NIA), Anantnag on 01.01.2022. The Detaining Authority, however, while passing the impugned order of detention has failed to notice this fact in its grounds of detention and this has rendered the detention bad and unsustainable.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.', 1987 AIR SC137 had held as under:

"05. We do not think it necessary to go into all the grounds urged before us by the petitioner's counsel in support of his prayer to quash the order of detention. The one contention strongly pressed before us by the petitioner's counsel is that the detaining authority was not made aware at the time the detention order was made that the detenue had moved applications for bail in the three pending cases and that he was