The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for 'compelling reasons' to justify preventive detention, and the objective of preventive detention as intercepting and preventing anti-social and subversive activities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner Mohammad Younis Mir (for short ‘detenue’), in the instant case was taken into preventive custody in terms of the order of detention bearing No. DMB/PSA/01 of 2022 dated 07.04.2022 (for short ‘the impugned order), issued under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) by respondent No.2- District Magistrate Budgam (for short ‘Detaining Authority’).

2. The order of detention is challenged by the detenue through the medium of this petition on the following grounds:-

i. That, the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable.

ii. That, the detenue was already bailed out in FIR No. 219/2021 however, this important fact has not been reflected in the grounds of detention.

iii. That, the last alleged activity attributed to the detenue as per the grounds of detention has taken place in July 2021 and thereafter no fresh activity has been attributed to the detenue.

iv. That the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, which is a pre-requisite before passing any detention order. The detaining authority has relied only on the police dossier.

v. That, the detenue has not been provided copy of dossier and other connected material like statement under Section 161, 164-A CrPC, seizure memos, bail order in a case mentioned in grounds of detention etc., to enable him to make an effective representation by giving his version of facts attributed to him.

vi. That, post detention, the detenue submitted a representation before respondent No.2, however, same was not considered and neither the material was furnished as requested in the representation so that an effective representation could be made before the Government as well as to Advisory Board.

3. Pursuant to notices, respondents filed counter affidavit to the petition, asserting therein that the detenue came to be detained vide impugned detention order, passed by the Detaining authority, fulfilling and complying with all the statutory and constitutional guarantees; that the detenue was detained to prevent him from resorting to the illegal activities; that the grounds of detention, order of detenue, as well as entire material relied upon by the Detaining authority was furnished to the detenue, while as warrant was executed through ASI Mohammad Naseem of Police Station Budgam; that he was detained initially in Central Jail Jammu and later shifted to District Jail Ambedkar Nagar of Uttar Pradesh vide Government order dated 20.04.2022. It was further pleaded that the detenue’s case was referred to the Advisory Board which observed that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenue, therefore, detention order was confirmed by the Government of J&K. Respondents would take further plea that the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, after applying mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, to prevent the detenue, from committing antinational and subversive activities. It was, finally, prayed that the petitioner’s petition be dismissed, upholding the detention order.

4. Learned counsel for the detenue pleaded that the impugned order of detention or the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority does not indicate any compelling reason necessitating preventive detention of the detenue after he had already been taken into custody by the police in a case FIR No. 219/2021 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 7/25 Arms Act; 18, 19, 20, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Learned counsel, thus, submitted that preventive detention of the detenue is illegal for the same having been passed at a time when the detenue was released on bail in the afore-stated case, without making a mention of it.

5. One more plea taken by learned counsel for the detenue is about the vagueness in the grounds of detention incapa