##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

…

HCP No. 151/2025

Reserved on: 09.12.2025

Pronounced on: 24.12.2025

Uploaded on: 26.12.2025

Whether operative part or : Full

full judgment is pronounced

Jaffer Ahmad Ahanger @ Haffarm aged 24 years S/o Ab Rahim Ahanger

R/o Magam Tehsil Handwara District Kupwara through his father.

……. Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. I Sofi, Advocate

Versus

1. Union Territory of J&K through Commissioner/Principal Secretary,

Home Department , J&K Govt. Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu

2. District Magistrate, Kupwara

.…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Faheem Shah, GA

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the medium of this petition, Order no.02/DMK/PSA of 2025

dated 29.04.2025, (impugned detention order) passed by District Magistrate,

Kupwara – respondent no.2, (for short „detailing authority‟) whereby

detenu, namely, Jaffer Ahmad Ahanger S/o Ab Rahim Ahanger R/o Magam,

Tehsil Handwara, District Kupwara, has been placed under preventive

detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial

to the security of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, 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

State and, therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of State.

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

1

HCP no.151/2025

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. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the detenu was arrested

on 28.04.2025 by the police personal of Police Chowki, Magam, thereafter

he was shifted to Police Station Handwara wherefrom he was shifted to

District Jail Udhampur, to be detained under preventive detention in terms of

impugned order of detention. It is stated that the detaining authority has

passed the impugned detention order mechanically and without application

of mind, inasmuch as the Police while recommending the detention of the

detenu has made FIR Nos.282/2016 & FIR No. 275/2017 as basis for his

detention. The police after investigation, filed Challan in the Court of law, in

FIR No. 375/2017 the detenu has been long back discharged while as

Challan in FIR No. 282/2017 is sub-judice and till date police has not been

able to prove said case against the detenu, therefore, mere registration of FIR

and mere production of Challan in the FIR does not establish that the detenu

has committed the said offences as alleged in the ground of detention,

inasmuch as the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite, non-existent on

which no prudent man can make an effective representation against such

allegations. It is also stated that the detenu has never been associated with

any organisation and grounds of detention are replica of dossier inasmuch as

the detenu on post detention has filed a representation before the respondent

no. 2, however, the same was not considered in due course of law nor the

material as requested was furnished to the detenu.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

detaining authority in the grounds of detention have stated that the detenu

was taken into preventive custody under the provisions of BNSS from time

to time and found intending to commit crime and accordingly was bound

down before the Executive Magistrate and despite that the detenu indulged

in the subversive activities, therefore, preventive detention under PSA has

become imp