Preventive detention orders must be based on recent conduct with a live link to current threats, and failure to provide necessary documentation to the detenue violates procedural safeguards.

JUDGMENT :

1) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the detention order No.34/DMB/PSA/2023 dated 15.05.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla (for brevity “the detaining authority”) has been challenged. In terms of the aforesaid order, Bashir Ahmad Mir son of Mir Zaman Mir resident of Dachi Tehsil Uri District Baramulla (for short “the detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2) The petitioner has contended that the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make an effective representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has been further urged that there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. It has also been contended that whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him. That the grounds urged by the petitioner are without any merit. It has been contended that all the procedural safeguards have been adhered to while passing the impugned order of detention. To substantiate their stand taken in the counter affidavit, the respondents have produced the detention record.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds:

(I) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the detenue has already been acquitted in FIR No.51/2013 of P/S Parimpora and has been convicted in FIR No.26/2013 of P/S Uri, but this fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention.

(II) That the whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue.

(III) That the impugned order of detention is based upon stale incidents having no proximate link to the activities alleged to be prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

6) It has been contended that the impugned detention order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, inasmuch as the grounds of detention do not bear any reference to the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the offences arising out of FIR No.51/2013 of P/S Parimpora, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge TADA/POTA, Srinagar, in terms of order dated 07.12.2021 and has been convicted in FIR No.26/2013 of P/S vide order dated 5^th October, 2018,passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class (sub Judge), Uri. Copies of the orders issued by the said Courts in this regard have been placed on record by the petitioner. The non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. This shows that the detaining authority has not meticulously examined the record while passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable in law. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 137

7) Next it is urged that whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not bee