Preventive detention orders must have a clear link to recent activities; failure to disclose essential facts renders such orders illegal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and the record attended therewith. Also perused the detention record produced in reference to the case.

2. The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking a writ of habeas corpus for quashment of his preventive detention and for consequent restoration of his personal liberty which has come to suffer denial on account of preventive detention order no. 1st/DM/K/PSA of 2023, dated 15.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar.

3. A course of event which led the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar in coming forward with the petitioners' aforesaid detention order relates to the respondent no. 3- Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kishtwar preparing a dossier no. CS/PSA/2023/3109-12/C, dated 27.02.2023 with respect to the petitioner on the basis of which a case came to be submitted to the respondent no. 3-District Magistrate, Kishtwar for getting preventive detention slapped upon the petition in order to deprive of his personal liberty reckoning him to be a case warranting application of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

4. The aforesaid dossier no. CS/PSA/2023/3109-12/C, dated 27.02.2023 at its own did not result desired outcome sought from the end of the respondent no. 2–District Magistrate, Kishtwar. The respondent no. 3-Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kishtwar, thus, came forward with another dossier communication no. CS/PSA/2023/ 4534-36/C, dated 06.04.2023 addressed to the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar.

5. Acting upon the said two dossiers from the end of the respondent no. 3-Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kishtwar, the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar came to consider the matter by framing grounds of detention enabling himself to pass the impugned detention order no. 1st/DM/K/PSA of 2023, dated 15.04.2023.

6. In the dossier which came to be submitted by the respondent no. 3-Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kishtwar at the first instance to the respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Kishtwar the facts allegedly related to the petitioner came to be spelled out stating therein that the petitioner was a government employee, serving as a Junior Assistant in PWD Department, who was highly influenced by the separatist mindset having remained affiliated with banned organization of HM and was even declared as OGW in the year, 2019. With this background introduction, the petitioner was alleged to be acting in furtherance of criminal intention to wage a war against the lawfully established Govt., supporting the terrorists by providing logistics, transport and shelter which resulted in costing the petitioner his government employment.

7. It is by reference to an FIR No. 67/2019 registered by the Police Station Kishtwar that the case was conceived to fetch the preventive detention of the petitioner so as to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K, detrimental to the maintenance of the public order considering that the substantive laws of the land have failed to desist the petitioner from carrying out the objectionable activities. By reference to said FIR, the arrest of the petitioner on 26.09.2019 came to be mentioned in the dossier with a corresponding mention that he was also let out on bail by the order of the court without divulging anything further on this count as to vide which order and on what basis the petitioner was able to earn bail from the competent Court of law.

8. The dossier so served by the respondent no. 3-Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kishtwar was not acted upon by the respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Kishtwar until the respondent no. 3-Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kishtwar came forward with second dossier no. CS/PSA/2023/4534-36/C, dated 06.04.2023.

9. From the detention record of the case, it comes out that in response to the dossier submitted