Preventive detention quashed after High Court finds it relied on stale FIR and no fresh prejudicial activity

The detenu, Abid Parvaiz Hajam, was arrested on 26.06.2020 in FIR No. 234/2020 registered at Police Station Pattan for offences under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. After approximately three years in custody, he was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Designated Special Court, NIA, on 12.05.2023.

He was thereafter detained under the Public Safety Act pursuant to detention order No. 41/DMB/PSA/2023 dated 22.05.2023. That detention order was quashed by the High Court in WP(Crl) No. 240/2023 by judgment dated 02.05.2024. Subsequently, the District Magistrate, Baramulla, passed the impugned detention order No. 15/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 07.05.2025, alleging that the detenu had engaged in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds that it substantially relied on the same FIR and grounds as the earlier quashed detention order, contained no specific fresh prejudicial activity, and reflected non-application of mind.

1. Whether the impugned preventive-detention order was vitiated by non-application of mind because the detaining authority failed to properly consider the earlier quashing of the detention order and the bail granted to the detenu.

2. Whether the detention order was based on stale material and lacked a live and proximate link between the detenu’s past conduct and the necessity for preventive detention.

The Court applied the principles governing preventive detention under the Public Safety Act, including the requirement that the detaining authority must derive genuine subjective satisfaction on the basis of relevant, rationally probative and contemporaneous material.

Relying on Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587, the Court held that the authority must apply its mind to all relevant circumstances and ensure a live and proximate link between past conduct and the imperative need for detention; grounds must also be precise and sufficiently clear to enable an effective representation.

Relying on Khaja Bilal Ahmad v. State of Telangana, (2020) 13 SCC 632, the Court reiterated that stale criminal incidents cannot ordinarily sustain preventive detention unless they have a direct nexus with the immediate need to detain, and that mere reference to past or pending criminal cases is insufficient.

The Court also noted the similar principle applied by the Division Bench in Suraj Masih v. U.T. of J&K, 2026:JKLHC-JMU:58-DB, relying on Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 233.

The Court found that the impugned order substantially rested on FIR No. 234/2020 and the material underlying the earlier detention order, which had already been quashed.

Although the respondents referred to the detenu’s alleged reactivation of contacts with terrorists, no specific fresh subversive activity after his release from the earlier preventive custody was attributed to him.

The detaining authority also failed to adequately account for the detenu’s bail order dated 12.05.2023 and the High Court’s judgment dated 02.05.2024 quashing the previous detention order.

Applying the requirement of a live and proximate link, the Court held that reliance on the old FIR and unparticularised allegations constituted reliance on stale grounds and demonstrated non-application of mind.

The detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith, unless required in any other case.