The Detaining Authority must demonstrate the likelihood of the detainee indulging in similar activities after being bailed out, and the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is subject to judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1 This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-08-2022 passed by a Single Bench of this Court [‘the Writ Court’] in W.P. (Crl) No. 246/2021 titled Hamid Farooq Bhat vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, whereby the Writ Court has declined to set aside the order of detention of the petitioner issued by the District Magistrate, Kulgam vide his No. 10/DMK/PSA/2021 dated 18.10.2021.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, it is necessary to notice few relevant facts. On the basis of some material such as dossier and other connected documents, like copies of FIRs registered against the appellant, the District Magistrate, Kulgam vide his order dated 18.10.2021 ordered detention of the appellant under Public Safety Act, 1978 [‘the Act’] with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State. Immediately on passing of the order of detention, the grounds of detention were served upon the appellant.

3. From a reading of the grounds of detention, it transpires that the activities, which the Detaining Authority found prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State, are such, in respect of which, two FIRs have been registered in Police Station Qaimoh in the year 2018 and 2021. Both the FIRs have been registered for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336 RPC and under Section 13 UA (P) Act. On the basis of allegations in the FIRs aforesaid, the Detaining Authority has come to the conclusion that the appellant is a great threat for security, sovereignty and integrity of the State of Jammu and Kashmir being a hardcore over ground worker of banned HM and TRF militant outfit, in that, he had been found providing food, shelter and other logistics to the active terrorists. The appellant has been found to be in touch with Pakistan based terrorist leaders and has been found taking instructions through a variety of recently available communication technologies that are encrypted and very difficult to decipher. Be that as it is, the Detaining Authority recorded its satisfaction that, with a view to prevent the appellant from indulging in activities prejudicial for the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State, it was necessary to place the appellant under preventive detention.

4. Feeling aggrieved by his detention, the appellant filed W.P. (Crl) No. 246/2021 before the Writ Court which was contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit. The Writ Court, after considering the rival contentions and having gone through the detention record, came to the conclusion that there was no ‘non-application of mind’ on the part of Detaining Authority and that the activities, the petitioner had been indulging in, had the potential of great threat for security, sovereignty and integrity of the State. The Writ Court, therefore, upheld the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority and dismissed the writ petition vide its judgment dated 12-08-2022. It is this judgment of the Writ Court which is impugned before us in this appeal.

5. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant on the ground that the detention order impugned before the Writ Court was an outcome of total non-application of mind and, therefore, not sustainable in law. The procedural formalities laid down under the Act, which are mandatory in nature, have not been complied with. The Writ Court, however, did not consider this aspect of the matter and dismissed the petition without assigning legally sustainable reasons.

6. Mr. S.T. Hussain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the basis of the detention order is registration of 02 different FIRs against the appellant, out of which, one is old and, therefore, could not have formed the basis of satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority to place the appellant under preventive de