01Facts
The petitioner, an alleged "Category A" Over Ground Worker (OGW) for LeT/TRF, challenged the detention order (No. 15-DMK/PSA of 2025) dated 30.04.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Kupwara.
pp. 1-2The petitioner was previously implicated in FIR No. 09/2024 under the Arms Act and UA(P) Act but was granted bail on 29.01.2025.
pp. 2-3The detaining authority issued the PSA order citing his long-term involvement in subversive activities since 2012 and the failure of ordinary law and prior preventive measures under Sections 127/170 BNSS to deter his conduct.
p. 4, 6The petitioner contended that the grounds were stale, material was not fully supplied, and the mention of a "maximum period" in the order was illegal.
p. 2, 702Issues
i.1. Whether a preventive detention order can be passed against a person who has already been granted bail in a substantive criminal case under the UAPA.
p. 5, para 9ii.2. Whether the non-supply of all relied-upon material or the failure to expeditiously consider a representation violates Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
pp. 6-7, para 12-14iii.3. Whether mentioning the maximum period of detention in the initial order vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
p. 7, para 1503Law Applied
The court applied the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, and Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
p. 2It relied on Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur, which establish that detention of a person on bail is permissible if there is a real possibility of them re-engaging in prejudicial activities.
p. 5Regarding procedural safeguards, it followed Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India and Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra, requiring the supply of all material to enable an "effective representation".
pp. 6-7It further noted the principle from Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal that preventive detention is a precautionary measure, not a parallel punishment.
p. 4, 6Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Arms Act, 1959 Section 2Section 7
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 13Section 18Section 19Section 20Section 23Section 38Section 39
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 127Section 170
04Reasoning
The court found the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction well-founded as the grounds specifically acknowledged the petitioner’s bail and explained the necessity of detention due to his "radical ideology" and continued threat to security despite the bail.
pp. 5-6The court dismissed the "non-supply of material" argument, noting the execution report confirmed the petitioner received 80 pages of relied-upon documents.
pp. 6-7The court also found no "unexplained lapse" in the government’s handling of the petitioner's representation, as it was considered and rejected within a reasonable timeframe (July to September).
p. 7The court ruled that mentioning the maximum detention period does not invalidate the order if independent application of mind is evident from the records.
pp. 7-805Holding
The grant of bail in a criminal case does not preclude preventive detention when there is a documented likelihood of the detenue reverting to prejudicial activities.
pp. 5-6, para 9-10The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the detention order, concluding that all constitutional and statutory safeguards were satisfied, as sufficient material was supplied and the representation was duly considered.
p. 8 · pp. 7, para 13-14Original Court PDF
AASHIQ HUSSAIN NAIKOOvsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
