Preventive detention must be based on clear grounds; vague allegations violate the right to effective representation and cannot substitute ordinary legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein has maintained the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution through his brother for quashment of detention Order No. 11/DMP/PSA/24 dated 01.02.2024 (for short “Impugned order”) passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama-respondent 2 herein (for short “the Detaining Authority”) where under the petitioner/detenue namely, Manzoor Ahmad Wani, S/O Gh. Mohi- U Din Wani R/O Reshi Pora Tral, Pulwama, has been detained by the Detaining Authority under the Provisions of Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The impugned order has been challenged on multiple grounds urged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in opposition to the petition wherein it is being stated that upon receipt of information through reliable sources by the sponsoring agency/police Awantipora, that the petitioner is working for a terrorist organization as Under Ground Worker (OGW) and is planning criminal conspiracy and providing logistics and shelter to the terrorists, the petitioner came to be booked in FIR No. 10 of 2023 under Section 7/25 Arms Act, 17, 18, 19, 23, 38 and 39 UA(P) Act, registered with Police Station Tral, Pulwama, where after, however, the petitioner came to be released on bail on 4^th November, 2023 after he was discharged in various offences covered in the FIR supra in terms of order dated 11^th September, 2023 and that post release on bail, the petitioner indulged in terrorist activities necessitating his detention under the preventive law and that the detention order came to be passed by the Detaining Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act, after the activities of the petitioner were found highly prejudicial to the security of the state by the Detaining Authority and that in the process of and upon detention of the detenue under the preventive law, all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees came to be complied with and fulfilled.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner admittedly came to be released on bail by the competent court in FIR supra on 4^th November, 2023 subject to various terms and conditions including the one that the petitioner shall not repeat the offence in future, while providing a liberty to the prosecution that in the event of breach of any of the conditions contained in the bail order, same shall entail cancellation of the bail, if violation of such conditions are reported by the prosecution to the court, that the respondents instead of availing liberty granted to them by the court below in the order of grant of bail dated 4^th November, 2023 did not seek cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner and instead chose to take recourse to the provisions of preventive law as a shortcut which is countenanced by law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even otherwise also the grounds of detention drawn and framed by the Detaining Authority for the purpose of detaining the petitioner are vague and ambiguous, do not spell-out the details and particulars of the activities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner post grant of bail warranting the detention of the petitioner under the preventive law, which failure of the Detaining Authority has deprived the detenue from making an effective representation against his detention, thus violating his constitutional right.

6. On the contrary the counsel for the respondents while controverting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed to the petition and would insist for dismissal of the petition.

7. In so far as the aforesaid first plea of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner came to be implicated in FIR No. 10/2023 along with other accused