SALEEM MUSHTAQ BEIGH vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)

1
P a g e |

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

2
P a g e |

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.

3
P a g e |

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.

4
P a g e |

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the detenue was involved in activities prejudicial to
maintenance of security of the State and that the detaining
authority, after deriving subjective satisfaction from the material
placed before it, validly passed the impugned detention order. It
is submitted that all constitutional and statutory safeguards were
complied with.
8. Preventive detention being an exceptional measure affecting
personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,
the procedural safeguards provided under Article 22(5) are
required to be strictly complied with.
9. A perusal of the detention record reveals that the grounds of
detention are substantially reproduction of the police dossier
supplied by the sponsoring agency. The detaining authority has
merely changed few words here and there without independently
applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The
reported
Supreme Court in ‘ Jai Singh & Ors. vs. State of J&K’

as AIR 1985 SC 764 held that where the grounds of detention
are verbatim reproduction of police dossier, it clearly reflects non-
application of mind on the part of detaining authority. Para-13 of
the judgment being relevant is reproduced as under:-
"13. Applying the settled legal position to the facts
of the present case, I find that the order impugned
cannot stand as it is based on grounds of detention,
which is only verbatim copy of police dossier. The
order of detention, for the reasons, exhibit total
non- application of mind on the part of detaining
authority and therefore, the petition is allowed and
the detention order No. PSA/104 dated 16.10.2020
passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua-
respondent No. 2 directing the detention of Balbir

5
P a g e |

Chand S/O Rana R/O Chack Drab Khan, Tehsil
and District Kathua is quashed. Respondents are
directed to release the detenue forthwith, provided
he is not required in connection with any other
case".
10. In the present case, the detaining authority failed to notice that
the detenue had already been enlarged on bail in two cases and
stood acquitted in one case. These facts were material and
germane for arriving at subjective satisfaction. Non-consideration
thereof renders the detention order unsustainable. The Supreme
Court in Anant Sakharam Raut & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
& Anr. reported as (1987) 1 SCC 340 observed that non-
consideration of relevant and vital material vitiates the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority.
11. The allegations relied upon in the grounds of detention pertain to
incidents which are remote in point of time in the years 2012-
2018 and had no proximate nexus with the purpose of detention
in the year 2025. Preventive detention must be based on a live
and proximate link between past conduct and necessity of
detention. The Supreme Court in Sama Aruna v. State of
Telangana & Ors. reported as (2018)12 SCC 150 , observed that
ordinary criminal law is sufficient to deal with law and order
problems and preventive detention cannot be used as substitute
for punitive law. In Para-16 the Apex Court came up with the
following reference:-
“16. Obviously, therefore, the power to
detain, under the Act of 1986, can be
exercised only for preventing a
person from engaging in, or pursuing
or taking some action which
adversely affects or is likely to affect
adversely the maintenance of public

6
P a g e |

order; or for preventing him from
making preparations for engaging in
such activities. There is little doubt
that the conduct or activities of the
detenu in the past must be taken into
account for coming to the conclusion
that he is going to engage in or make
preparations for engaging in such
activities, for many such persons
follow a pattern of criminal activities.
But the question is how far back?
There is no doubt that only activities
so far back can be considered as
furnish a cause for preventive
detention in the present. That is, only
those activities so far back in the past
which lead to the conclusion that he is
likely to engage in or prepare to
engage in such activities in the
immediate future can be taken into
account. In Golam Hussain alias
Gama v. Commissioner of Police,
Calcutta and Ors. (1974)4 SCC 530,
this Court observed as follows:
“5. No authority, acting rationally,
can be satisfied, subjectively or
otherwise, of future mischief
merely because long ago the
detenu had done something evil
To Rule otherwise is to sanction
a simulacrum of a statutory
requirement. But no mechanical
test by counting the months of
the interval is sound. It all
depends on the nature of the
acts relied on, grave and
determined or less serious and
corrigible, on the length of the
gap, short or long, on the reason
for the delay in taking preventive
action, like information of
participation being available
only in the course of an
investigation. We have to
investigate whether the causal
connection has been broken in
the circumstances of each case.

Suffice it to say that in any case,
incidents which are said to have taken
place nine to fourteen years earlier,
cannot form the basis for being
satisfied in the present that the detenu

7
P a g e |

is going to engage in, or make
preparation for engaging in such
activities…”

12. In the case on hand, no cogent reason has been indicated by the
detaining authority as to why ordinary law was insufficient to deal
with the detenue particularly when he had already been admitted
to bail by competent courts. The record further reveals that
copies of dossier, statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., seizure memos and other material relied upon by the
detaining authority were not furnished to the detenue.
13. The right to make effective representation against detention order
is a valuable constitutional safeguard enshrined under Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India. Such right becomes illusory
unless all material relied upon is supplied to the detenue. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of
“Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham V. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
reported as (AIR 1999 SC 3051), has held as under:-
“The right to be communicated the
grounds of detention flows from Article
22(5) while the right to be supplied all the
material on which the grounds are based
flows from the right given to the detenue to
make a representation against the order of
detention. A representation can be made
and the order of detention can be assailed
only when all the grounds on which the
order is based are communicated to the
detenue and the material on which those
grounds are based are also disclosed and
copies thereof are supplied to the person
detained, in his own language.”
Similar view was taken in Thahira Haris v. Government of
Karnataka & Ors. reported as AIR 2009 SC 2184 , wherein it

8
P a g e |

was held that non-supply of documents prejudices the detenue in
making effective representation.
14. Since whole of the relied upon material was not furnished to the
detenue, the constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) stands
violated, as a result vitiating the impugned detention order.
15. Next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
representation submitted by the detenue against the detention
order came to be rejected by the Government in a mechanical
and cryptic manner without assigning any reasons. The record
produced by the respondents also reveals that the representation
was disposed of casually without proper consideration of the
grounds raised therein. Consideration of representation against
preventive detention is not an empty formality. The authority
concerned is under constitutional obligation to consider the
representation independently, expeditiously and meaningfully. In
Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal reported as (1970)
1 SCC 219 , the Supreme Court held that representation of
detenue must be considered with utmost expedition and
seriousness. The Court has observed that:-
“It is established beyond any measure of
doubt that the appropriate authority is
bound to consider the representation of
the detenue as early as possible. The
appropriate Government itself is bound to
consider the representation as
expeditiously as possible. The reason for
immediate consideration of the
representation is too obvious to be
stressed. The personal liberty of a person
is at stake. Any, delay would not only be an
irresponsible act on the part of the
appropriate authority but also
unconstitutional because the Constitution

9
P a g e |

enshrines the fundamental right of a
detenue to have his representation
considered and it is imperative that when
the liberty of a person is in peril immediate
action should be taken by the relevant
authorities…”
Likewise, in Haradhan Saha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal &
Ors. reported as 1974 AIR 2154 , it was held that the
constitutional safeguard available to a detenue cannot be
reduced to mere ritualistic formality.
16. The cryptic rejection of representation in the present case clearly
violates the constitutional guarantee enshrined under Article
22(5) of the Constitution.
17. Viewed from any angle, the impugned detention order cannot
sustain in law. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and Detention
Order No. 07/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29.04.2025 passed by
respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Baramulla, is quashed.
The detenue shall be released from preventive custody forthwith,
provided he is not required in any other case(s).
18. Scanned detention record be sent back.
19. Disposed of, as indicted above.

( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
14.05.2026
Muzammil. Q

Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No