Specific post-bail activities establish a live link supporting preventive detention.

The petitioner challenged detention order No. 10/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29 April 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla, directing his preventive detention to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

The detention grounds referred to the petitioner’s involvement in FIR No. 185/2019, registered under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 23 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in which two Chinese UBGL hand grenades were allegedly recovered from him; he was subsequently released on bail.

The grounds further relied on complaints dated 14 August 2023 and 30 March 2024 under Sections 170/151 CrPC, as well as intelligence inputs alleging that the petitioner had established contacts with Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists through encrypted applications and virtual proxy networks and was reactivating terrorist activities in Rafiabad and Sopore.

The petitioner alleged that the grounds were stale, vague, and unsupported by sufficient material, and that the entire relied-upon material had not been supplied to him, thereby preventing an effective representation.

The respondents disputed these allegations and produced the detention record, asserting compliance with all statutory and constitutional safeguards.

1. Whether the detention order was vitiated by the absence of a proximate and live link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the date of detention, thereby rendering the grounds stale?

2. Whether the allegations in the grounds of detention were vague and lacking in material particulars, preventing the petitioner from making an effective representation?

3. Whether non-supply of the material relied upon by the detaining authority violated the petitioner’s procedural and constitutional safeguards?

The Court applied the principles governing preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, requiring the detaining authority to rely on relevant, proximate, and sufficiently specific material demonstrating that detention is necessary to prevent prejudicial activities.

The Court also applied the constitutional requirement that the detenue must be furnished the grounds of detention and the material relied upon by the detaining authority so as to enable an effective representation against the detention.

Complaints under Sections 170/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the material relating to the petitioner’s alleged activities were treated as relevant material for assessing whether his conduct continued to pose a threat to the security of the State.

No judicial precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.

The Court held that the petitioner’s 2019 FIR, by itself, did not determine the validity of the detention because the record also contained subsequent complaints dated 14 August 2023 and 30 March 2024, followed by intelligence inputs alleging continuing links with terrorist organisations and renewed terrorist activity.

These subsequent and specific instances supplied a sufficient live and proximate link between the petitioner’s alleged conduct and the detention order, defeating the argument that the grounds were stale.

The Court also rejected the vagueness challenge, observing that the complaints were specific and that the grounds identified the petitioner’s alleged contacts, methods of communication, terrorist affiliation, and areas of activity.

On the issue of supply of material, the detention record showed that the petitioner had received 38 leaves, including the detention warrant, notice, grounds of detention, dossier, FIR, witness statements, and other relevant documents, including both complaints; his receipt acknowledging supply was also available on record.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the material forming the basis of the detention order had been furnished and that the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation had not been impaired.

It held that the grounds of detention were not stale or vague and that the petitioner had been supplied the complete material relied upon by the detaining authority.

Finding no ground to interfere with detention order No. 10/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29 April 2025, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition.

The detention record was directed to be returned to counsel for the respondents.