Preventive detention requires a proximate link to recent conduct; prior conduct without new threats does not justify ongoing detention.

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner has assailed order of detention bearing No.03/DMP/PSA/24 dated 10.01.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama. In terms of the impugned order, Ashiq Hussain Dar @Asif Dar has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

2) The petitioner has contended that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue. It has also been contended that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order.

3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and contents of the same were read over and explained to him; that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further contended in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the cases including the detention record.

5) The main ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the detention order passed against the petitioner is that there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order, inasmuch as no fresh activity has been alleged in the grounds of detention against the petitioner after his release on bail in FIR No.65/2022 of Police Station, Litter.

6) In the above context, a perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that there is a reference to incident dated 16.06.2022, according to which two persons, namely, Mohammad Younis and Jan Mohammad Ganie, who were working as OGWs of terrorist outfits, had planted an IED on the directions of terrorists for causing grave threat to the life and property of the common people as well as police personnel. Regarding this incident, FIR No.65/2022 for offences under Section 18, 20, 23, 39 UAP Act, (cid:190) Explosive Substances Act was registered in P/S Litter and the investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident was established and, accordingly, he was taken into custody and was later on released on bail on 21.10.2023. The grounds of detention further reveal that upon release of the petitioner on bail, he was bound down by the Executive Magistrate

1^st Class, Pulwama, under Section 107 /151 of Cr. P. C.

7) After narrating the aforesaid facts, the detaining authority has expressed apprehension that the petitioner may again indulge in subversive activities and continue his support to the terrorists. On this basis, the detaining authority has drawn satisfact