Preventive detention upheld where specific post-release terrorist activity allegations and relied-upon materials were furnished to the detenue.

The petitioner challenged detention order No. DMS/PSA/31/2024 dated 11 October 2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, directing his preventive detention to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

The detention grounds referred to the petitioner’s involvement in three FIRs registered in 2016–2017, his earlier detention under the Public Safety Act from which he was released on 10 September 2024, and his subsequent apprehension under Sections 126/170 of the BNSS on 14 September 2024.

The grounds further alleged that, after his release, a Pakistan-based TRF handler, Ahmad Khalid, contacted the petitioner through an encrypted messaging application and asked him to recruit young persons for terrorist activities.

The petitioner contended that he had never been released from custody, that the material relied upon by the detaining authority—including material concerning the alleged fresh activities—had not been supplied, that his representation had not been considered, and that the grounds of detention were vague and lacked proximity to the detention order.

The respondents denied these allegations and produced the detention record, including the detention order, grounds, dossier, and other relied-upon material.

Whether the petitioner’s detention was invalid on the ground that he had never been released from custody and, therefore, could not have engaged in fresh prejudicial activities?

Whether the failure to supply the material relied upon by the detaining authority vitiated the detention order?

Whether the petitioner’s representation against detention was duly considered within the applicable procedural framework?

Whether the grounds of detention were vague, lacked material particulars, or were insufficiently proximate to the detention order to enable an effective representation?

The Court applied the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act governing preventive detention for preventing activities prejudicial to the security of the State, together with the constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards requiring that the detenue be furnished the grounds and relied-upon material and be afforded an opportunity to make a representation.

The Court also considered the procedural effect of the petitioner’s release from his earlier detention and his subsequent binding down under Sections 126/170 of the BNSS.

The governing principle applied was that preventive detention must be based on relevant and sufficiently specific material, and that a detention order will not be invalidated where the record demonstrates that the relied-upon material was supplied, the representation was considered, and the grounds contain adequate particulars enabling an effective representation.

The Court rejected the contention that the petitioner had remained continuously in custody, finding from the record that he was released on 10 September 2024 and remained out of custody until the detention order was passed on 11 October 2024; the alleged fresh activities could therefore form the basis of preventive detention.

It further held that the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of the detention order, notice, grounds of detention, dossier, and 48 pages of other relied-upon material, totalling 58 pages, defeating the non-supply objection.

The representation submitted on 21 October 2024 was rejected by communication dated 4 November 2024, and the petitioner had acknowledged being informed of that decision; accordingly, the allegation of non-consideration was rejected.

Finally, the Court found the grounds sufficiently specific because they identified the alleged post-release period, the encrypted communication, the Pakistan-based TRF handler Ahmad Khalid, and the alleged recruitment activity. These particulars were held adequate to enable an effective representation and to establish a nexus between the alleged conduct and the detention order.

Finding no legal ground to interfere with detention order No. DMS/PSA/31/2024 dated 11 October 2024, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition for lack of merit and directed that the detention record be returned to the respondents’ counsel.