Facts
Through a petition, Nayeem Ahmad Khan challenged detention order No. DMS/PSA/26/2025 dated 02.06.2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
Source reference: p. 1The petitioner was placed under preventive detention to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K.
Source reference: p. 1The grounds of detention relied on FIR Nos. 61/2018 and 85/2018; however, the detaining authority failed to mention that the petitioner had already been granted bail in both cases by competent courts.
Source reference: p. 3While the petitioner had been bound down under Section 126/170 of the BNSS on 23.04.2025, no steps were taken to address the alleged breach of those bonds before resorting to preventive detention.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the non-mentioning of the fact that the petitioner was already admitted to bail in the FIRs cited in the grounds of detention constitutes a non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Source reference: p. 3, para 4(i)2. Whether the grounds of detention were sufficiently specific to allow the petitioner to make an effective representation as required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Source reference: p. 3, para 4(ii)3. Whether preventive detention is the appropriate remedy when a person has allegedly breached a bond executed under Section 126/170 of the BNSS.
Source reference: p. 5, para 7Law Applied
Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, concerning the power to detain, and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to make an effective representation against detention.
Source reference: p. 1, 4The detaining authority must meticulously examine the record, specifically the bail status of the accused, as established in Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and Rekha v. State of T.N.
Source reference: p. 4The doctrine that vague and cryptic grounds lacking material particulars (places, dates, or identities) render detention unsustainable, citing Jahangirkhan Fazal Khan Pathan vs. Police Commissioner and Mohd. Yousuf Rather vs. State of J&K.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court found that the detaining authority exhibited a clear non-application of mind because the grounds of detention completely omitted the vital fact that the petitioner had been enlarged on bail by the Special Judge (NIA Act) and the Additional Sessions Judge (TADA/POTA).
Source reference: p. 3, para 5This omission shows a failure to meticulously examine the record, rendering the order unsustainable.
Source reference: p. 3-4The Court reasoned that allegations regarding "logistic support" to terrorists lacked particulars regarding time, place, and identity, thereby violating the constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).
Source reference: p. 4, para 6The respondents failed to proceed against the petitioner for any alleged breach of the personal bonds executed under BNSS, holding that preventive detention is not an appropriate substitute for enforcing bond violations.
Source reference: p. 5, para 7Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the detention order was illegal due to non-application of mind and vagueness.
The petition was allowed, and the detention order (DMS/PSA/26/2025) was quashed. The Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner from preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case.
Source reference: p. 5, para 8Original Court PDF
NAYEEM AHMAD KHANvsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in