ORDER :

JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.

1. Through the medium of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged detention order No. DMS/PSA/37/2025 dated 12-09-2025 (for short impugned order) passed by the District Magistrate-respondent 2 hereinafter (for short “detaining authority”) under and in terms of the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

2. The impugned order has been challenged on multiple grounds urged in the petition.

3. Reply has been filed by the respondents to the petition, wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that the collective assessment of the grounds for detention has led the detaining authority to reach subjective satisfaction for placing the petitioner under preventive detention. It is further stated that since the detenue was deeply influenced by radical ideology upon coming into contact with terrorist and OGWs, who motivated him to work for them as OGWs of Let/TRF outfit, as a consequence, the petitioner got indulged in anti-national activities and started providing logistic support/financial and operational support to the terrorist of Let/TRF, besides sharing sensitive information regarding movement of Police and Security forces in the area.

It is further stated that the petitioner was found involved in receiving/collecting money from local individuals and businessmen on behalf of handlers operating from PoK and was involved in case FIR No. 69/2025 registered with Police Station Handwara, relating to one Shafat Maqbool Wani who was inciting the people of Handwara to engage in anti-national activities, whereupon the petitioner was arrested by the NIA thereafter in connection with re-registration of the said FIR No. 69/2025 being FIR No. RC/03/2025/NIA/JMU under Sections 13, 17 and 18 of UAP Act.

It is also stated that after examining the dossier carefully and perusal the material made available to it, the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner’s activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the state, as such, ordered preventive detention of the petitioner in terms of the order of detention 12-09-2025.

It is further stated that the order of detention was executed upon the petitioner on 14-09-2025, and the grounds of detention and other material was read over and explained to him in the language he understood and was also informed that he has a right to make a representation against the detention to the detaining authority and the Government.

It is also stated that the Advisory Board examined the detention case of the petitioner and found sufficient grounds existing warranting detention of the petitioner and consequently the Government confirmed the order of detention on 06-10-2025.

It is lastly stated that the order under challenge came to be passed by the detaining authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1978 complying with all procedural safeguards prescribed under the Act, as also adhering to the guarantees provided under the constitution.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record.

4. It is significant to mention here that notwithstanding multiple grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in the petition. Mr. Shariq Jan, the counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to a solitary ground that the order of detention stands vitiated on account of complete non application of mind by the detaining authority, in that, the detaining authority did not take cognizance of the fact that the petitioner have had been granted bail in the FIR referred in the grounds of detention on 11-09-2009 by the competent court of law and even though the said fact have had been provided in the dossier drawn by the responsing agency based upon which the detaining authority passed the impugned order, yet the detaining authority overlooked the said fact and proceeded to pass the impugned order even having failed to record reasons much less compelling reasons thereof warranting preventive deten