Preventive detention under PSA invalid when based solely on unculminated BNSS preventive proceedings absent final orders, criminal antecedents or specific facts, rendering grounds vague smokescreen violating Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

RAHUL BHARTI, J.

1. Habeas Corpus petition is a petition of distress through the medium of which a person having lost his personal liberty is given a constitutional right of approaching a Constitutional Court with a deep seated belief and hope of seeking restoration of his personal liberty which is a most cherished of all fundamental right amongst all the fundamental rights figuring in Part-III of the Constitution of India.

2. The institution of present writ petition bears same distress call whereby the petitioner-Hilal Ahmad Wagay is seeking indulgence of this Court to restore him to his personal liberty by having petitioned this Court on 27.5.2025 adjudication whereof is taking place through the medium of this judgment.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. Perused the respective side pleadings and the documents available on the record of this File. Also perused the detention record.

4. By virtue of a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama vide his letter No. CS/PSA/25/25-28 dated 28.04.2025, the respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Pulwama was solicited to take notice of the alleged reported activities of the petitioner being reckoned to be prejudicial to the security of the State so as to inflict a preventative detention order upon him under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

5. The dossier so submitted referred the petitioner as ‘Imam’ of the Jamia Masjid, Nowpora, Chadoora. The purported field reports are said to have suggested the petitioner working as potential OGW to an active terrorist-Asif Ahmed Sheikh providing him shelter and other logistic support.

6. It is worth reproducing herein one particular line referring to the petitioner and same reads as, “The subject is also providing ass sort of assistance to the active terrorist for his movement from one place to another place.” This Court needs not to say or observe any further on the quality of reading of text by its author.

7. The dossier refers to the reports that the petitioner while performing ritual prayers was giving objectionable sermons about ‘Jihad’ for luring the young generation to get them involved and to join terrorist ranks. The petitioner, being a resident of hilly area, is said to be fully aware of the topography of the area enabling him to provide logistic support to other local/foreign terrorists for their movement from one place to another. The petitioner is referred to be so radicalized that he is waiting for an opportunity of weaponry snatching so that he may join the terrorist folds.

8. The petitioner is said to have been subjected to preventive custody under sections 126 and 170 BNSS on 11.04.2025 and 17.04.2025

9. It is by reference to the alleged profile of the petitioner that a case for his preventive detention was put into process from the end of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama.

10. The respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Pulwama, purportedly applying his mind to the dossier and the material therewith, formulated purported grounds of detention therein referring that the petitioner, who is the resident of the village Abhama Tehsil Rajpora, District Pulwama, is ‘Hafiz-e-Quran’ of 2014 on the basis whereof he got appointed as ‘Molvi’ at ‘Markazi Jamia Masjid’, Abhama for the period 2015 to 2024 whereafter shifted to Nowpora, Chadoora and pursuing his oc