HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on : 19.03.2024

Pronounced on : 04.04.2024

Case:- WP(Crl) No. 549/2022

Bilal Ahmad Dar, Aged : 26 years

S/o Gulzar Ahmad Dar,

R/o Tangwari Payeen of District Baramulla

Through his Brother namely Abid Gulzar

….Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Syed Avees Geelani, Advocate

Vs

1. Union Territory J&K through Principal Secretary to Government/

Financial Commissioner, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/

Jammu.

2. District Magistrate, Baramulla.

3. Superintendent, Central Jail Kotbhalwal, Jammu.

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Jahangir Ah. Dar, GA

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the

writ pleadings and the record therewith and also the detention

record.

2. The petitioner, who is a 26 years aged person and being

in a state of detainment acting through his brother Abid Gulzar,

has petitioned this court with the present writ petition under

article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of certiorari and

2 WP(Crl) No. 549/2022

habeas corpus in order to earn restoration of his fundamen tal

right to personal liberty curtailed by his preventive detention.

3. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Baramulla

by virtue of an order No. 51/DMB/PSA/2022 dated 25.06.2022

directed the preventive detention of the petitioner by reckoning

his activities prejudicial to the security of the State and directed

his arrest and confinement in Central Jail Kotbhalwal, Jammu.

4. This detention order came to be passed by the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Baramulla in furtherance

of a dossier submitted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP),

Baramulla vide letter No. CS/PSA/2022/5505 -08 dated

24.06.2022 thereby reporting that the petitioner’s alleged

activities were detrimental to the security of the State and that

requires subjecting the petitioner to preventive detention.

5. For enabling himself to pass the detention order, the

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Baramulla formulated the

grounds of detention, thereby identifying the petitioner to be an

overground worker (OGW) of LeT outfit and the petitioner’s

activities being found responsible for creating circumstances

conducive to the propagation of secessionist ideology. The

petitioner is stated to be harbouring anti-national sentiments and

coming in contact with an overground worker of LeT outfit Ishfaq

3 WP(Crl) No. 549/2022

Ahmad Bhat on whose motivation the petitioner started working

with him and both have started providing food and shelter to a

Pakistani militant, namely, Usman Bhai and one local terrorist,

namely, Hilal Ahmad Sheikh who got killed in an encounter at

Malwa Kunzer in the year 2022.

6. The preventive detention order passed by the respondent

No. 2 – District Magistrate, Baramulla came to be confirmed by

the Govt. by virtue of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1822 of 2022

dated 08.08.2022 followed by Govt. Order No. Home/PB -V/3121

of 2022 dated 16.12.2022 and the petitioner’s place of detainment

came to be in District Jail Faridabad, Haryana. The petitioner’s

preventive detention is said to have been directed to last for the

full two years duration. The petitioner came to be arrested on

27.06.2022 in execution of the detention warrant.

7. It is this detention of the petitioner which is being

impugned by the petitioner on the grounds as cited in the writ

petition. The petitioner has alleged that the preventive detention

order is based upon surmises and conjectures. The petitioner has

denied each and every allegation made in the grounds of

detention to be frivolous and baseless. The petitioner has alleged

that his right to make an effective representation has been

seriously prejudiced by vagueness of the grounds of detention.

4 WP(Crl) No. 549/2022

8. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Baramulla,

in his counter affidavit, has controverted the challenge posed by

the petitioner in his writ petition to his preventive detention, on

the strength of the grounds of detention and has reiterated that

the preventive detention of the petitioner is justified.

9. When this Court examines the purported grounds of

detention supporting the impugned detention order, this Court

comes across with a fact that no criminal antecedents are

reported and attached against the petitioner thereby leaving only

bald opinionated statements coming forth from the contents of

the dossier replicated as it is, meaning thereby without any

factual content of some worth reporting some incidents in

reference to the persons named in the grounds of detention the

petitioner has been simply branded in a negative manner against

which by no stretch of pr udence any person including the

petitioner can be expected to come up a fact based

reply/representation to vindicate his conduct.

10. As the grounds of detention are nothing but a hallowed

appropriation of words in profiling the petitioner so as to

somehow carve out a justification for putting the petitioner

behind the bars, just by impulse of suspicion entertained at the

end of the District Police and reciprocated by the District

Magistrate concerned, thus, the grounds of detention in the

5 WP(Crl) No. 549/2022

present case forming the basis of the preventive detention order

are held to be inherently vague, thereby vitiating the preventive

detention of the petitioner.

11. Accordingly, the preventive detention order No.

51/DMB/PSA/2022 dated 25.06.2022 passed by the respondent

No. 2 – District Magistrate, Baramulla read with consequent

confirmation & extension orders are set aside and the preventive

detention of the petitioner is held to be illegal and, therefore, the

petitioner is held entitled to restoration of his personal liberty.

The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released from the

confinements of the Jail wherever he is presently lodged and for

that the Superintendent of concerned Jail is directed to release

the petitioner forthwith and the respondent No. 2 – District

Magistrate, Baramulla shall ensure that the petitioner is released

without any delay.

12. Disposed of accordingly.

13. Detention record, if any, is returned back.

(RAHUL BHARTI)

JUDGE

SRINAGAR

04.04.2024

Muneesh

Whether the order is speaking : Yes

Whether the order is reportable: Yes