JUDGMENT

RAHUL BHARTI, J.

01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well for the respondents. Perused the pleadings i.e. the writ petition and the annexures therewith as well as the counter affidavit. Detention record produced from the end of the respondents by Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, learned GA also examined.

02. The best opening which adjudication of this case deserves to be put at first is the ever awakening words of renowned Scientist Albert Einstein saying that “Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with the important matters.”

03. Exercise of jurisdiction under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is constitutionally meant and understood to be very serious jurisdiction which admits of no carelessness on the part of its handlers at any stage of but in the present case the respondents No. 1 to 3 are found to be acting in converse to the aforesaid saying of Mr. Albert Einstein.

04. This is a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed on 27.05.2025 by the petitioner- Mudasir Ahmad Bhat, acting through his wife Mst. Shagufta Akhter, thereby seeking a writ of habeas corpus for quashment of preventive detention which came to be inflicted upon the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama purportedly acting in exercise of jurisdiction under section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 which resulted in curtailment of personal liberty of the petitioner with effect from 01.05.2025 when the petitioner came to be allegedly arrested and detained and continues to be so till coming of adjudication of this writ petition.

05. Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama, by virtue of his letter No. CS/PSA/25/25-28 dated 28.04.2025, came to lay a dossier with respect to the petitioner thereby purportedly projecting before the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama alleged state of activities of and on the part of the petitioner which were read and reckoned by the District Police as needed to be checked so as to prevent the petitioner from disturbing peace and carrying out further anti-national activities which warrant the preventive detention of the petitioner under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 purely in the interest of security of the Country/Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

06. In the dossier, Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Pulwama came to refer the petitioner working as a salesman in a tin shop at Main Market, Pulwama and in his course of working and occupation getting in contact with anti-national workers, some killed terrorists and getting himself engaged in subversive/anti-national activities.

07. The petitioner was also referred to be a working potential OGW of active terrorist, namely, Ehsan-ul-Haq, providing all logistic support to him as well as to other terrorists whose floating movements were being observed in District Pulwama especially in Mitrigam area and providing them information about movement of Security Forces.

08. The petitioner was also reported to be luring young generation to get them engaged in anti-national activities and to join terrorist rank through his supporters.

09. In order to check the aforesaid alleged reported activities of the petitioner, he is said to have been called by the concerned Police Station twice on 28.02.2025 and 23.04.2025 by reference to authority under section 126/170 of BNSS but despite that the field reports provided that the petitioner was still providing all sort of assistance to active (local/FT) terrorists on account of being highly radicalized and sympathizer to terrorists having natural tendency to support terrorists engrossed in making unswerving efforts to influence the gullible minds of youngsters and make them to support the terrorists and terrorist organizations in order to promote the terrorism by every possible means with an aim to prepare the youth to join different terrorists folds in order to strengthen and revive their lost strength which otherwise ha