JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner herein -Danish Farooq Bhat (‘detenue’ for short) is aggrieved of the order passed by the respondent No.3-District Magistrate, Kupwara (‘DM’ for short), who, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, as detaining authority has detained the petitioner in order to prevent him from the activities detrimental to the security of the UT of J&K in terms of detention Order No. 06-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 29.04.2025 ( ‘impugned order’ for short).

1. The impugned order of detention is challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that the respondents have not followed due procedure of law while detaining the detenue under the preventive law which renders his detention illegal; that the illegal activities attributed to the detenue are all imaginary, false, baseless, concocted and based on surmises; that the detenue was illegally implicated in case FIR No. 133/2017 under Section 7/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Handwara; that the investigation in the said FIR culminated in filing of a charge-sheet, presented before the court of competent jurisdiction and the same is pending trial; that after registration of FIR No. 133/2017 there are no fresh allegations leveled against the detenue; that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while preparing the grounds of detention and has acted upon the recommendations of the Police agencies and has framed the grounds of detention at their behest; that there is no cogent material to detain the detenue under the preventive law; that the satisfaction is illusory and not valid one; that the detention of the detenue is patently illegal and against the law and deserves to be quashed.

2. Respondents, pursuant to notice after admission of the petition to hearing, filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of detention is based on a reasonable prediction of future behavior of the detenue; that the detenue’s anti-national and illegal activities have posed a serious threat to the public safety and security of UT of J&K that the preventive detention is devised to afford protection to the Society and the object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept him before he does it and to prevent him from doing; and that any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not contribute in any way to the nature of punishment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the plea of vagueness in the grounds of detention. It is being argued that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention relate to the year 2017 and those activities have no proximity with the period when the impugned order was passed for the purpose of preventive detention unless any fresh activity is not attributed to the petitioner. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not mentioned in the impugned detention order that normal law was ever invoked before taking recourse to preventive detention law and that too was applied merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It was prayed to upset the impugned order being unsustainable for the aforestated grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, supporting the detention order, contended that the detenue’s continuous anti-national and illegal activities, made it imperative to detain the detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act and there were sufficient grounds available for such detention. It is further contended that the live link is still sustaining, as the detenue is still involved in the anti-national activities and the adverse reports projected by the sponsoring agency to recommend the detenue for preventive detention under the provisions of the Public Safety Act.

5. Heard, perused the detention record as has been made available by learned counsel for the respondents and considered the same.

6. The detaining authority-DM has based the detention orde