IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention orders must be based on specific and substantiated grounds, with the detaining authority required to apply its mind independently to the facts of the case, and any significant delay in execution must be satisfactorily explained.

JUDGMENT :

WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the detenue, through his father challenging the legality and validity of the detention Order No. 15/DMP/PSA/20, dated 13.07.2020 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the detenue has been detained under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Besides, the petitioner has sought Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the detenue, namely, Sajad Ahmad Bhat S/o Ghulam Nabi Bhat, R/o Mandakpal Khrew, Pampore, Pulwama, J&K.

2. The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the dentition order mechanically without application of mind inasmuch as the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case.

3. It has been further contended that the detenue was arrested by the Security Forces without any justification and was picked from his home and was detained under Public Safety Act (PSA) and lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar. The further case of the detenue is that on 06.05.2020, an FIR No. 17/2020 for commission of offences under sections 147, 148, 336 and 427 IPC was registered by the Police of Police Station, Khrew and the detenue was arrested in connection with the said FIR. He was apprehended and subsequently bailed out as the offences were bailable in nature.

4. The detention order bearing No. 15/DMA/PSA/20, dated 13.07.2020, issued by respondent No. 2, has been impugned by the detenue, through his father, inter alia on the grounds:-

I. That the detention order has been passed without due application of mind, the petitioner further submits that the case mentioned in the grounds of detention has no nexus with the detenue and has been fabricated by the police to justify its illegal act of detaining the detenue. The impugned order refers to one FIR, but it does not specify any specific allegation against the detenue and it does not show how the detenue was involved in the case. It is a case where due to insufficient grounds of detention, the detaining authority has ordered detention under open FIR without considering the matter that the detenue had been already bailed out by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction and without applying its mind. The detention order states that the detenue is „indulging in instigating and provoking people particularly youth of the area to continue undesirable activities and keep on disturbing the peace and tranquility in the area'. There is nothing in the detention order that discloses the basis of the aforementioned assertions. These are mere allegations without any proof made to justify an illegal detention. On this count, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

II. The detenue was granted bail in the FIR and hence the detention is not justified.

III. That the respondents have not acted upon the Impugned detention order and after a gap of almost two years have apprehended the detenue in pursuance of the impugned detention order and hence the detention is not Justified in the eyes of law.

IV. That the detenue has not been convicted by any court for any offences alleged by the respondents in the concerned FIR. Without there being a single conviction, the detenue has been booked under the preventive detention law in a casual manner.

V. That the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations and can only be defended in a court of law. The petitioner further submits that the case mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and has been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. On this ground the detention order in question is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Despite said fact the detenue has already forwarded a representation to the government and the same has not been decided or even considered.

VI. That the detenue was not informed that within what