##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 06.05.2026

Pronounced on:15.05.2026

Uploaded on: 15.05.2025

Whether the operative part or

full judgment is pronounced:

Full

HCP No.107/2025

RAYEES AHMAD LONE

...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)

Through: - Mr. G. N. Shaheen, Advocate.

Vs.

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

Through: - Mr. Waseem Gull, GA.

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

JUDGMENT

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

challenged detention order bearing No.04-DMG-PSA-2025 dated

30.04.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Ganderbal, whereby the

detenue, namely, Rayees Ahmad Lone, has been placed under

preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the

activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the

State.

2) In the petition, it has been contended that that the

allegations/the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions, on

the basis of which no prudent man can make an effective

representation. It has been contended that the allegations mentioned

in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that

HCP No.107/2025 Page 1 of 5

the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal

action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the

procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case,

inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned

detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner and that the

detenue was not detained in accordance with Section 8 of the Public

Safety Act.

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

the impugned detention order is based on a reasonable predilection of

future behaviour and the same has been passed after considering the

past conduct of the detenue. It has been contended that the activities

of the detenue are highly 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 the parties and perused record

of the case.

HCP No.107/2025 Page 2 of 5

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 grounds of

detention are vague, cryptic lacking in material particulars, which

prevented the detenue from making an effective and suitable

representation against his detention

6) In the above context, it will be profitable to extract the relevant

portions of the grounds of detention, which read thus:

“….However, subsequent surveillance and

intelligence reports indicate that he has not reformed

and continues to exhibit a strong ideological

alignment with extremist elements…

The subject has demonstrated consistent ideological

alignment with terrorists and separatist elements

inciting the youth, glorifying and supporting militant

agendas…”

7) A perusal of the above quoted extracts of the grounds of

detention clearly shows that the same are vague lacking in material

particulars. In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the

particulars of the places and the identity of the alleged terrorists,

extremist and separatist elements, with whom the petitioner has

demonstrated consistent ideological alignment. The particulars of the

period when the detenue is alleged to have me