The requirement for fresh facts for a subsequent detention order and the need for a live link between alleged activities and the purpose of detention.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner prays for quashment of Order no. 10/DMB/PSA/2021 dated 18.10.2021(impugned detention order) passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla – respondent no. 2, (for short ‘detailing authority’) whereby detenu, namely, Ulfat Bashir Mir S/o Bashir Ahmad Mir R/o Nowpora, Tujjar Sharief, Sopore District Baramulla, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of State and directing his lodgement in Central Jail Kotebhalwal, Jammu on the grounds made mention of therein

2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of Union Territory of J&K. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have gone through the detention record produced by the counsel appearing for respondents and considered the matter.

4. The case set up by the petitioner in the petition is that the detenu was earlier arrested in the year, 2019 in connection with case FIR No.280/2019 under Section 20, 23 ULA (P) Act, 7/25 A Act by Police Station, Sopore and subsequently placed under preventive detention vide Order No.93/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 08.05.2020, which was challenged in WP(Crl) No.126/2020. The said detention order was quashed vide judgement dated 17.09.2021 but the detaining authority instead of releasing the detenu has passed the impugned detention order on the same and similar grounds. It is stated that detenu is neither involved in any fresh FIR nor any fresh prejudicial activity, as such, impugned detention order is in violation of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India deserves to the quashed. Further, the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite, non-existent on which no prudent man can make an effective representation against such allegations. It is further contended that the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case and the grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflects and shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner states that notwithstanding quashment of earlier detention order, respondents have again placed detenu under preventive detention in terms of impugned order of detention. His next submission is that same grounds of detention have been framed by detaining authority to place detenu under preventive detention in terms of impugned order of detention, which were made while passing order detention order, which was quashed by this Court and the same reflects non-application of mind on part of detaining authority. Learned counsel also submits that detaining authority has not given any fresh grounds for detention against detenu although a passing reference has been made in the grounds of detention with respect of the report of Superintendent of Police, Sopore that detenu is a major threat to the law and order and if he is allowed to remain at large, it will affect maintenance of the security of the State, which itself does not amount to fresh ground when most of the incidents or facts/grounds are taken from earlier grounds of detention and, therefore, impugned detention order is bad in law because no fresh ground has been mentioned in second detention order.

6.