JUDGMENT

1. Challenge in this petition has been thrown to a Detention Order No. 08/DMS/PSA of 2025 dated 01.05.2025 passed by respondent no. 2-District Magistrate, Shopian vide which petitioner came to be detained under Section 8(1)(a) of The J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 in view of his alleged activities prejudicial to the ‘security of U.T of J&K’ and lodged in District Jail Udhampur.

2. Background facts of the case are that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian-respondent No.3, describing the petitioner as a desperate character, habitually indulging in illegal activities, which poses great threat to the security, peace and tranquility of UT of J&K, submitted a dossier and connected documents to District Magistrate, Shopian-respondent No.2 for his detention.

3. The dossier elaborated three FIRs against the petitioner viz., FIR No. 25/2019 under sections 3/5 Explosive Substances Act and 15, 16 of UA(P) Act registered at P/S Sherghari; FIR No. 509/2010 under sections 443, 379 RPC registered at P/S Shopian; and FIR No. 121/2010 under sections 379, 413, 467 RPC registered at P/S Pulwama. It was alleged that the petitioner has been found to be an over ground worker (OGW) of the terrorists and is actively involved in providing a variety of logistic support to them who have unleashed a spate of terror in the area, besides the petitioner is involved in sharing the movement of security forces and police and related information with the terrorists in the area. It was also alleged that on the basis of information gathered from discrete surveillance reports the petitioner is found to be an over ground worker(OGW) of different terror outfits and has been constantly engaged in providing all kinds of logistic support to active terrorists which makes him habitual offender. The petitioner is found devising new means and methods with other OGWs to facilitate terrorists at every possible sphere and to ensure disruption of security, peace and stability in the district. It was further alleged that petitioner was not only involved in organized crime but he also had close association/links with hardcore/notorious criminals and his activities created a sense of insecurity and terror in the area with potential to disturb peace and communal harmony.

4. The petitioner pleads that the activities attributed to him have allegedly taken place in the year 2019 and thereafter no fresh activity has been attributed to the detenue and the impugned detention order has been passed on 01.05.2025 meaning thereby that there is delay of about six years between the alleged activity and the order of detention and this delay has snapped the proximity of allegations with passing of detention order; that the petitioner has been detained on the basis of false and frivolous FIRs registered against him but the offences mentioned above are not covered under Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 and in the absence of the same the impugned detention order is bad in eyes of law; that the impugned order has been passed on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in FIRs with respect to which the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail which have no foundation and, as such, the order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be revoked; that the detaining authority has not considered the representation of the petitioner and further no time limit has been communicated to the petitioner within which he was supposed to make a representation to the detaining authority and that no satisfaction has been recorded by detaining authority that the normal punitive law has failed to prevent the illegal activities of the petitioner which renders necessary issuance of detention order, as such, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

5. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit, wherein it has been contended that none of the legal, constitutional and statutory right of the petitioner has been violated and impugned order came to be passed by the detaining authority after due