##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 18.12.2025

Pronounced on:29.12.2025

Uploaded on: 29.12.2025

Whether the operative part

or full judgment is

pronounced: Full

HCP No.332/2024

USMAN AYOUB DAR ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. Asif Iqbal, Advocate.

Vs.

UT OF J&K & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Bikram Deep Singh, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner has challenged detention order No.193/

DMS/PSA/2024 dated 12.09.2024, issued by District

Magistrate, Shopian. In terms of the aforesaid order, Usman

the detenue

Ayoub Dar, (“ ”) has been placed under preventive

detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner

prejudicial to the security of the UT/Country.

2) The petitioner has contended that the grounds of

detention are vague and non-existent. It has been contended

that the safeguards provided under the law have not been

complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the

material which formed basis of the grounds of has not been

HCP No.332/2024 Page 1 of 7

supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that

there is total non-application of mind on the part of the

detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order

and that the representation submitted by the petitioner against

his detention has not been considered.

3) The respondents have filed their reply affidavit, wherein

they have contended that the activities of detenue are highly

prejudicial to 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 the same was read over and

explained to him and 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 contented

in the reply affidavit that all the statutory requirements and the

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 parties and perused the

record.

5) Although the petitioner has raised a number of grounds

for impugning the detention order, yet during the course of

HCP No.332/2024 Page 2 of 7

arguments, he has laid much emphasis on the following

grounds:

(i) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of

the detaining authority while passing the order of

detention, inasmuch as the said authority has simply

relied upon the dossier submitted by the Senior

Superintendent of Police, Shopian.

(ii) That the representation of the petitioner has been

considered by the respondents belatedly and its result

has not been conveyed to the petitioner.

(iii) That whole of the material on the basis of which the

grounds of detention have been formulated has not been

supplied to the petitioner to enable him to make an

effective and suitable representation.

(iv) That the grounds of detention are full of vague allegations

against the petitioner on the basis of which it was

impossible for him to make an effective representation.

6) So far as the first ground urged by the petitioner is

concerned, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, the

detaining authority has, after narrating the past conduct of the

petitioner as was placed before the said authority by the Senior

Superintendent of Police vide his dossier, recorded its

satisfaction that these activities of the petitioner unequivocally

establish that he is associated with terrorists as an OGW and is

consistently indulging in the activities which pose threat to the

HCP No.332/2024 Page 3 of 7

security of the UT. It has also been recorded by the detaining

authority in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is

deeply involved in anti-national and anti-social activities being

highly motivated OGW and, thus, his activities are prejudicia