JUDGMENT :

Rahul Bharti, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. Perused the pleadings and the documents therewith.

2. The petitioner-Mohd Saleem Khan, acting through his daughter Mst. Suhana Saleem, has filed the writ petition on04.06.2025, through the medium of which the petitioner is seeking restoration of his personal liberty which has come to be curtailed on account of the respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir’s Order No. DIVCOM “K”/77/2025 dated 26.04.2025 passed in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT NDPS) Act 1988, which has brought the petitioner to be in a state of custody with effect from 29.04.2025 meant to last for a period of one year and by that count the petitioner is left with only last 2 / 3 months of preventive detention custody to serve.

3. The respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, was approached by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora, with letter No. Conf/PSA/2025/28-31 dated 03.04.2025 bearing a dossier against the petitioner through which the petitioner’s alleged activities were reported to be prejudicial to the mandate and intent of PIT NDPS Act, 1988 thereby warranting his preventive detention.

4. On the basis of said dossier, the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir came to formulate purported grounds of detention on the basis whereof preventive detention of the petitioner was ordered by aforesaid detention Order No.DIVCOM “K”/77/2025 dated 26.04.2025.

5. In the grounds of detention, the adverse antecedent of the petitioner came to be highlighted by reference to FIR No. 132/2022 registered by the Police Station Tral for alleged commission of offences under Section 8/15, 29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

6. The petitioner has come to challenge his detention on the basis of the grounds as set out in paras 4 to 15 of the writ petition. The petitioner has referred to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India bearing the following citations:-

a) Syed Abdul Ala Vs. Union of India and Others AIR 2007 SCW 6974;

b) Icchu Devi Choraria Vs. Union of India and Others (1980) 4 SCC 531; and

c) Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Vs. Union of India and Others (1981) 2 SCC 427

7. Counter affidavit to the writ petition came to be filed on 09.10.2025 wherein it has come to be stated as a fact that pursuant to impugned detention order, the petitioner came to be taken into custody on 29.04.2025 from which date onwards the petitioner stands subjected to suffer preventive detention custody to last for a period of one year on the basis of Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1090 of 2025 dated 02.06.2025 with place of confinement to be in the Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu

8. When this Court examines the grounds of detention in light of challenge mounted by petitioner to his preventive detention, this Court is convinced that the resort to preventive detention custody has been made by Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Awantipora, supplemented by the respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, with a mindset to serve as punitive punishment upon the petitioner without waiting for the final outcome of the criminal case by reference to FIR No.132/2022.

9. The very fact that mention of FIR No. 132/2022 is there in the impugned order in it is very first para is an exhibit of the fact that what actually was weighing with respondent No. 2- Divisional Commissioner Kashmir in ordering preventive detention of the petitioner is the petitioner’s implication in FIR No. 132/2022. That being so, this Court is at loss to figure out as to why then the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Awantipora waited for more than two and a half years to come forward with a dossier against the petitioner for seeking his preventive detention custody. Otherwise, if case of the preventive detention of the petitioner was being pressingly conceived, then same should have b