Preventive detention requires a clear live link between recent activities and the grounds for detention; mere reliance on past actions is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

1. Through the medium of this writ petition, petitioner prays for quashment of detention Order No.29/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 16.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla – respondent no.2, whereby detenu, namely, Aijaz Ahmad Mir @ Molvi S/o Ghulam Hassan Mir R/o Logripora, Bomai, Zaingeer, Sopore , Baramulla, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order in the UT of J&K, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are anti-national and anti-social and the allegations have been meticulously linked to the detenu's involvement, based on concrete evidence and investigative findings, as he is involved in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order of UT of J&K. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply/counter 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 and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record produced by counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that the detenu has been shown involved in FIR Nos.109/2021 and 163/2021 under Section 307, 147 , 148, 149, 336 IPC registered in Police Station Sopore and there is no proximate and live link between the allegations levelled against the detenu in terms of the aforesaid FIRs and the grounds of detention; that the material with regard to above FIRs have not been provided to detenu to enable him to make a representation against his detention inasmuch as allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations and that allegations mentioned in grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu and detaining authority has passed impugned order of detention in a mechanical and casual manner without application of mind. It is also stated that detaining authority in impugned detention order has mentioned that detenu is being placed under preventive detention as his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order in the UT of J&K, whereas in the grounds of detention, at one place it is mentioned that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and at another place it is mentioned that activities of the detenu are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of Security of UT of J&K which reflects non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority because detention order is to be issued either for "public order" or "Security of the UT of J&K" but not under both the heads and, therefore, impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. It is also stated that it appears that grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflect and show non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority.

5. As already noted, learned counsel for detenu contends that detaining authority, while passing impugned detention order, was not certain as to on which ground impugned order was to be passed because it has made reference to both the expressions, namely, “activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the impugned detention order and in grounds of detention at one place, it is mentioned that “activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public