HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR …

Reserved on: 25.11.2025 Pronounced on: 05.12.2025 Sahil Ahmad Hurra,Aged 22 years S/o Muzzafar Ahmad Hurra R/o Tilsara, Charar I Sharief, District Budgam through his father ……. Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. M. Amin Khan & Mr. Waheed Ahmad, Advocates Versus

1. Union Territory of J&K through Pr incipal Secretary, Home Department , J&K Govt. Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu

2. District Magistrate, Budgam

3. Sr. Superintendent of Polic Budgam

4. Superintendent , District Jail, Bhaderwah.

.…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Mudasir Majid Malik, Dy AG CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the medium of this petition, Order no. DMB/PSA/10 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 (impugned detention order) passed by District Magistrate, Budgam – respondent no. 2, (for short „detailing authority‟) whereby detenu, namely, Sahil Ahmad Hurra, S/o Muzzafar Ahmad Hurra R/o Tilsara, Charar I Sharief, District Budgam has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, is sought to be quashed and the detenu set at liberty on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the UT and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of UT of J&K. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the detention record produced by the counsel appearing for respondents.

4. The case set up by the petitioner in the petition is that the detenu was initially booked in FIR No.83/2020 registered at Police Station, Charar-e- Sharief U/S 18, 19, 23 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 when he was a juvenile as is evident by the Release Order/Docket dated 24^th August, 2020 issued by the Juvenile Justice Board, Budgam, which granted bail to the detenue with conditions to be fulfilled by his guardian (petitioner) inasmuch as the detention order relies solely on FIR No. 83/2020 and beyond the said FIR, no concrete evidence of recent unlawful activities has been provided, even repeated bound downs mentioned in the grounds of detention i.e. 22.01.2024, 02.03.2024, 02.05.2024, 13.05.2024, 20.06.2024, 10.01.2025 and 19.03.2025 as administrative measures do not constitute proof of ongoing criminal actions. Further, the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenu and the detaining authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass the impugned detention order. It is being stated that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention are vague, irrelevant and non–existent as no date, month or year has been reflected in the grounds of detention. The detaining authority has not applied its mind to the facts of the case but has acted on the report submitted by Sr. Superintendent of Police, Budgam, It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the detenu with other terrorist cadres are bent upon to revive terrorist activities to disturb the public peace and order in the area, and also providing them logistic support, shelter and other assistances, however, he has no connection with any terrorist organization. The said allegations are vague, imaginary and without basis. It is also averred that the detenu is neither associated with any organization nor involved in any such activity which is prejudicial to the security of the State.

5. It is also contended that detaining authority h