Preventive detention must be justified and cannot be used to circumvent judicial processes, especially when the individual is already in custody.

JUDGMENT :

01. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

02. Perused the pleadings and the record therewith. Also perused the detention record produced from the end of the respondents.

03. Acting through his wife-Bilques, the petitioner-Bilal Ahmad Malla has invoked writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for quashment of his preventive detention and restoring his personal liberty by release from the Central Jail Jammu, Kotbhalwal.

04. The preventive detention of the petitioner is sourced to an order No. DMS/PSA/75/2022 dated 28^th of June, 2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar acting in exercise of power under section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 in terms whereof the petitioner was ordered to be detained and to be kept in confinement in the Central Jail Jammu, Kotbhalwal.

05. A case for curbing the personal liberty of the petitioner was sponsored by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar by submitting a dossier vide letter No. Lgl/Det-PSA/2022/12876-79 dated 27^th of June, 2022 wherein it came to be reported that the petitioner is a hard core OGW involved in harbouring, promoting, aiding and abetting terrorism in Kashmir Valley particularly in Srinagar by being found involved in providing food/ shelter and logistic support to the terrorists.

06. The petitioner came to be referred as an incorrigible secessionist of his area promoting/ instigating/ abetting/ aiding local youth of the area for unlawful activities by motivating them to join terrorist ranks so as to wage war against the security and sovereignty of India and to secede the Union Territory of J&K from the Union of India. The petitioner was alleged to have been indulging in disturbing the public tranquility besides endangering human life causing impediments in the smooth economic development of the Union Territory. The referred alleged activities of the petitioner were reported to be a great threat to the security of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir as the people of the area are highly terrorized by the petitioner.

07. In order to bad caricature him, the petitioner’s involvement and implication in FIR No. 192/2021 under section 307 IPC read with section 7/27 Indian Arms Act and sections 13, 16, 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 registered by the Police Station Safa Kadal came to be referred.

08. Acting upon the said dossier, the respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Srinagar borrowed the text and context of the dossier verbatim so as to constitute the same as grounds of detention for drawing a purported subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a person whose activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State and, therefore, warranted his preventive detention, thus leading to the issuance of detention order No. DMS/PSA/75/2022 dated 28^th of June, 2022.

09. The execution of the detention warrant upon the petitioner came to take place when the executing officer ASI Tariq Ahmad No. 2723/S EXK-872787 of the Police Post Noorbagh came to detain the petitioner on 1^st of August, 2023 by handing over his person to the Superintendent, Central Jail Jammu, Kotbhalwal.

10. The detention order No. DMS/PSA/75/2022 dated 28^th of June, 2022 came to be approved by the Home Department, Government of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir by passing a Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1534 of 2022 dated 5^th of July, 2022. At the time of approving of the detention order, the arrest and detention of the petitioner had not been carried out which came to take place on 1^st of August, 2023 after a gap of almost one year one month from the month and year of order of detention.

11. The execution of the detention warrant is said to have been accompanied by handing over of detention order (one leaf), notice of detention (one leaf), grounds of detention (two leaves) and other document (one leaf) as per execution report, whereas as per r