HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

…

Reserved on: 25.11.2025

Pronounced on: 17.12.2025

Uploaded on 17.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced :Full

Mohammad Shafi Dar

…..…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Adv.

V/s

UT of J&K and others

………Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Rahila Khan, Assisting Counsel

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. In the instant writ petition, exercise of powers under and in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought for so as to quash Detention Order no.DIVCOM-“K”/106/2025 dated 12.06.2025 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir – respondent no.2 (detaining authority), whereby detenu, namely, Mohammad Shafi Dar S/o Lt. Gh. Mohd Dar R/o Tulkhan Bijbehara District Anantnag, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the “Act”) and directing his lodgment in Central Jail,

Kathua.

2. The case set up by the petitioner, in this petition, is that the detenu was arrested by police in the year 2024 without any reason and justification and was taken into Police Station Bijbehara, where he was implicated in case FIR No. 90/2024. The detenu was admitted to bail by the Court of Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge) Anantnag on 28.05.2024 and he was released from custody. The detenu was again arrested in the month of June 2025 and shifted to District Jail, Kathua to be detained under preventive detention in terms of impugned detention order. It is stated that the respondent no.2 on the basis of some dossier submitted by SSP Anantnag

without application of mind and without evaluating the allegations has passed the impugned detention order, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are replica of dossier. The allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenu as nothing was recovered from him whereas the grounds of detention shows that seizer has been effected from the detenu and furthermore, after his release on bail, no fresh activity has been attributed nor he has violated the bail conditions inasmuch as the detenu was already admitted to bail in case FIR No. 90/2024 as mentioned in the grounds of detention. Despite having knowledge of this important fact, the detaining authority has not reflected the compelling reasons in the grounds of detention to justify the impugned detention order. Further, it is also submitted that the last alleged activity attributed to the detenu has allegedly taken place in April 2024 and he was subsequently released from custody on bail in May 2024 and after his release no fresh activity has been attributed to the detenu. The delay of more than twelve months between the last alleged activity and the order of detention has snapped the „live link and proximity and failure on the part of detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner renders the detention order unreasonable and unjustified and deserves to be quashed.

3. It is further stated that at the time of execution of detention order, the detenu was not given an opportunity to make a representation and even he was not informed that he has a right to make a representation against his detention to the detaining authority apart from making representation to Government, as is evident from letter dated 12.06.2025 issued by detaining authority to the detenu nor the respondents disclosed to him before whom he can make the representation, and instead he was informed to make representation before an authority which has not passed the impugned detention order which is total violation of rights of the detenu as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitutional of India inasmuch as the detaining authority has not informed the detenu about the period within which he was supposed to make a representation, Further, the respondents has to furnish the relevant material l