##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 11.12.2025

Pronounced on:26.12.2025

Uploaded on: 26 .12.2025

Whether the operative part

or full judgment is

pronounced: Full

HCP No.92/2024

SHEIKH ABDUL ROUB

...PETITIONER/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. Bilal Ahmad Khan, Advocate

Vs.

UT OF J&K & ORS

…RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA.

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

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has

assailed detention order bearing No.02/DMK/PSA/2024 dated

07.03.2024, issued by District Magistrate, Kulgam, whereby Sheikh

Abdul Roub (the detenue) has been placed under preventive

detention in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities

which are prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the

State.

2) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the impugned

detention order has been challenged by the petitioner contending

that the impugned detention order has been passed without

application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-

existent and stale on which no prudent man can make a

HCP No.92/2024 Page 1 of 4

representation against such allegations. It has been further

contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied

with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not

been provided to the petitioner.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended

that the activities of the detenue have been found prejudicial to the

security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and

grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the

detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same

were read over and explained to him. It has been further contended

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 also averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory

requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and

complied with by the detaining authority and that the 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) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment

of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main

thrust during the course of arguments was on the ground that the

detenue has not been provided whole of the material forming basis

HCP No.92/2024 Page 2 of 4

of the grounds of detention, which prevented him from making an

effective representation against his detention.

6) A perusal of the detention record reveals that the petitioner

has received four leaves comprising PSA warrant (01 leaf), notice (01

leaf) and grounds of detention (02 leaves). The grounds of detention

bear reference to FIR No.24/2021 registered with P/S D. H. Pora. It

was incumbent upon the respondents to furnish not only copy of the

FIR but also the statements of witnesses recorded during

investigation of the said FIR and other material on the basis of which

petitioner’s involvement therein is shown, which has not been done.

Even the copy of the dossier has not been supplied to the petitioner.

Thus, contention of the petitioner that whole of the material relied

upon by the detaining authority, while framing the grounds of

detention, has not been supplied to him, appears to be well-founded.

Obviously, the petitioner has been hampered by non-supply of these

vital documents in making an effective representation before the

Advisory Board, as a result whereof his case has been considered by

the Advisory Board in the absence of his representation, as is clear

from the detention record. Thus, vital safeguards against arbitrary

use of law of preventive detention have been observed in breach by

the respondents in this case rendering the impugned order of

detention unsustainable in law.

7) It needs no emphasis that