##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 28.04.2026

Pronounced on: 15.05.2026

Uploaded on: 15.05.2026

Whether the operative part

or full judgment is

pronounced: Full

HCP No.242/2025

NAYEEM AHMAD KHAN

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

Through: - Mr. Z. A. Qureshi, Sr. Advocate, with

Mr. Athar Rashid, Advocate.

Vs.

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

Through: - Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG,

with Mr. Haarish Khan, Advocate.

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

JUDGMENT

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

challenged detention order bearing No.DMS/PSA/26/2025 dated

02.06.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar, in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978,

whereby the detenue, namely, Nayeem Ahmad Khan, has been

placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging

in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K.

2) It has been contended by the petitioner that the allegations

mentioned in the grounds of detention are vague. It has been

submitted that impugned detention order has been passed without

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

HCP No. 242/2025 Page 1 of 5

and stale, on the basis of which no prudent man can make a

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. It has been further urged that there has been non-

application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the

impugned detention order as the detenue was already admitted to bail

in the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention but the said fact is

not mentioned in the grounds of detention and that the representation

submitted by the petitioner against the impugned detention order has

not been considered as no result of consideration has been conveyed to

him.

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

HCP No. 242/2025 Page 2 of 5

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) 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 following grounds:

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

of the detaining authority as the detenue has already

been admitted to bail in FIR Nos.61/2018 and 85/2018

registered with P/S Pantha Chowk, but this fact has not

been mentioned in the grounds of detention.

(ii) That the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic,

which prevented the detenue from making an effective

representation against his detention.

5) From a perusal of the material available on file, the ground

regarding non-application of mind on the part of the detaining

authority appears to be forceful, inasmuch as the grounds of detention

do not bear any reference to the fact that the petitioner had already

been admitted to bail in both the FIRs mentioned there