Preventive detention under the J&K Public Safety Act is justified when there are specific allegations of anti-national activities, such as coordinating with terrorists, regardless of whether the person is on bail in other cases or has executed peace bonds.

Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full

JUDGMENT

1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.11/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29.04.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Baramulla, whereby the detenue, namely, Tanveer Ahmad Najar, has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State.

2) It has been contended that the detenue is not involved in any criminal activity except in FIR No.203/2018 in which he is facing trial. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are replica of dossier and the detaining authority has not applied its mind while formulating the grounds of detention. It has been further contended that the grounds of detention are vague, stale and non-existent and that the representation filed by the petitioner has not been considered.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the impugned detention order has been passed after proper application of mind and the same is based on reasonable prediction of future behaviour. It has been further contended 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. It has also been contended that the detention of the detenue has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. 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.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, has projected various grounds but he has laid much emphasis on the following ground:

(I) That there were no compelling circumstances for the detaining authority to pass the detention order against the petitioner as there were regular criminal cases already registered against the petitioner.

(II) That the respondents have not taken any action against the petitioner for violating the bonds executed by him in terms of Section 107 /151 of Cr. P. C and 126/170 of BNSS .

(III) That there are vague allegations made in the grounds of detention against the petitioner, on the basis of which it was not possible for him to make an effective representation.

(IV) That the result of consideration of the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention was not conveyed to him.

6) So far as the first ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in this context if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to FIR No.2023/2018 for offences under Section 7/25 Arms Act and Section 13 UA(P) Act registered with Police Station, Sopore. It is noted in the grounds of detention that the petitioner has been granted bail in the said FIR. The grounds of detention further proceed to allege that after the petitioner was granted bail and he was made to execute