##PAGE1##

P age | 1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

HCP No. 238/2025

Reserved on: 07.05.2026

Pronounced on: 14.05.2026

Uploaded on: ____________

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced- Full

Saleem Mushtaq Beigh

S/O Mushtaq Ahmad Beigh,

R/O Jalalabad Sopore,

District Baramulla.

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Adv. Syed Sajad Geelani.

Vs.

1. Union Territory of J&K through

Principal Secretary to Govt.,

Home Department,

Civil Sectt. Srinagar.

2. District Magistrate, Baramulla.

3. Superintendent District Jail Amphalla.

…Respondent(s)

Through: Dy.AG Hakim Aman Ali.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Through the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of detention

Order No. 07/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29.04.2025 passed by

respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Baramulla under the

P age | 2

provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978,

whereby the detenue has been placed under preventive

detention in order to stop him from indulging in the activities

prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘security of State’.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

impugned detention order is illegal, unconstitutional and

unsustainable in law on several grounds, namely:

(i) non-application of mind by the detaining authority;

(ii) reliance upon stale and irrelevant grounds;

(iii) verbatim reproduction of police dossier;

(iv) non-supply of entire material relied upon by the detaining

authority; and,

(v) cryptic rejection of representation submitted by the detenue.

3. It is contended that the detenue was falsely implicated in three

cases registered vide FIR No. 126/2012 under sections 307

RPC, 7/27 Arms Act; FIR No.106/2015 under sections 3/5

Explosive Substances Act and 7/27 Arms Act; and, FIR

No.10/2018 under section 7/25 Arms Act, all at Police Station,

Sopore. Out of three cases, the detenue had been granted bail in

two and had been acquitted in one, prior to passing of the

impugned order, yet these material facts were neither properly

considered nor reflected in the grounds of detention. According to

learned counsel for the petitioner, omission to consider such vital

facts demonstrates complete non-application of mind by the

detaining authority.

P age | 3

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2-District

Magistrate Baramulla, vehemently resisting the petition,

contending that detaining a person under the provisions of Public

Safety Act is always preventive in nature and its sole aim is to

prevent a person from pursuing anti-national/anti-social activities,

which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order/security

of the State/UT. In the instant case there is enough material

against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the

normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from

continuing with his anti-national activities and it is evident that the

detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-

national and unlawful activities.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and

considered the detention record produced by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds

urged in the petition, argued that the allegations relied upon by

the detaining authority pertain to incidents which had allegedly

occurred long prior to issuance of the detention order and had no

live or proximate link with the object sought to be achieved by

preventive detention. It is argued that stale incidents cannot form

basis for preventive detention. It is also submitted that though the

detention order refers to various FIRs, statements, police dossier

and other connected material, the same were never furnished to

the detenue, thereby depriving him of making an effective and

meaningful representation against the order of detention as

guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

P age | 4

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

sub