Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Salman Riyaz Khan vs Ut Of J&K on 14 August, 2025
Supple 1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Pronounced on: 14.08.2025
HCP No. 103/2024
Salman Riyaz Khan ...Petitioner(s)
s/o Reyaz Ahmad Khan
r/o Pulwama Tral a/p Firdousabad
Batmaloo Srinagar
Through his father Reyaz Ahmad Khan.
Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb , Advocate.
vs.
1.UT of J&K, through Principal Secretary to Govt.
(Home) Department Civil Sectt. Srinagar,
2.District Magistrate, Srinagar.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar. ...Respondents.
Through: Mr. Mubashir Malik, Dy. AG.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, Judge.
JUDGMENT
1) Impugned in the instant petition, filed on behalf
of the petitioner/detenu, under the provisions of Article
226 of the Constitution of India, is the order of detention
bearing No. DMS/PSA/01/2024 dated 29.03.2024, issued
by the respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Srinagar
(hereinafter referred to as the “Detaining Authority” for
short), in exercise of its powers vested under Section 8 (1)
of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
Page 1 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
(hereinafter referred to as “PSA” for short), whereby the
petitioner/detenu was ordered to be detained and lodged in
the Central Jail, Srinagar for a period to be specified by the
Government, with a view to prevent him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
2) On behalf of the petitioner/detenu, issuance of
writs in the nature of Certiorari and Mandamus, have been
sought for quashment of the impugned detention order and
consequent release of the petitioner/detenu.
3) The impugned detention order has been
challenged through the medium of the instant petition on
the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner/detenu was
arrested by the police party in the year 2023 and taken to
Police Station, Nowhatta where he was detained illegally
and was implicated in case FIR 38/2023; that he was
admitted to bail on 10.02.2024 in the said case FIR but
was not released and instead shifted to Central Jail,
Srinagar to be detained in terms of the impugned detention
order; that the allegations leveled against him in the
grounds of detention are far from the facts and have been
fabricated by the Police in order to justify its illegal action
of detaining him; that the allegations made in the grounds
of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man
can make a representation against such allegations; that a
single alleged activity attributed to the detenu is alleged
Page 2 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
to have taken place on 16.10.2023, whereafter he was
arrested and subsequently released on bail by the
competent court; that the detaining authority has not
prepared the grounds of detention itself, which is a pre-
requisite for passing of a detention order; that there was
no material furnished to the petitioner/detenu to make an
effective representation before the Ld detaining authority
for his release; that the petitioner/detenu is not
conversant with the English language and as such the Ld
detaining authority was under an obligation to furnish
him the Urdu/Kashmiri translated versions of the
detention record and to also made him to understand the
contents of the same; that the detention of the
petitioner/detenu has been mainly based on his alleged
involvement in case FIR No. 38/2023 registered with PS
Nowhatta, in which he was admitted to bail by the learned
trial Court; that although the petitioner/detenu was
informed about the impugned detention order, but he was
not informed as to by which time he has a right to make a
representation to the learned Detaining Authority as also to
the Government; that neither the copy of the FIR nor the
copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the
investigation of the said FIR were furnished to the
petitioner/detenu, so as to enable him to make an effective
representation against his detention; that the learned
Detaining Authority was under an obligation to furnish
Page 3 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
translated copy of the FIR and the statements of witnesses
to the petitioner/detenu so as to enable him to understand
the same in his local language; that the petitioner/detenu
is innocent and has never indulged in any activity
prejudicial to the security of the State and the allegations
leveled against him in the memo of grounds of detention
are totally false; that the grounds relied upon by the
Detaining Authority are not only obsolete, stale,
ambiguous, indefinite and untrue, but also lacking
essential details, thus having no nexus with the purpose
sought to be achieved under the provisions of PSA; that the
Detaining Authority while passing the order impugned, has
violated all the procedural safeguards guaranteed under
Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and he has got no
other alternate or efficacious remedy available to him,
except to file the instant petition before this Court.
4) The respondents through their reply affidavit
filed by the Ld. Detaining Authority, have resisted the
instant petition on the grounds that, same is not
maintainable as none of the legal or constitutional rights of
the petitioner/detenu stand violated. That the
petitioner/detenu has not approached this Court with
clean hands, as the petition has been filed on baseless and
untrue grounds. That the detention order has been passed
by the Detaining Authority in exercise of its powers vested
under Section 8 (1) of the PSA, in order to prevent the
Page 4 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
petitioner/detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the security of the State, as there was sufficient material
against him, suggesting his at large being prejudicial to the
interests of security of the State. That the detention order
impugned in the petition has been passed on the subjective
satisfaction and upon application of mind by the learned
Detaining Authority. That preventive detention is designed
to protect the society and the fundamental concept of the
preventive detention is to prevent an individual from
indulging in any action in future, which may prove
detrimental to the security of the State. That the detention
order was passed on a reasonable prediction of future
behavior, considering the petitioner/detenu’s past conduct
in the light of the surrounding circumstances. That there is
a direct and immediate link between the
petitioner’s/detenu’s past conduct and his apprehended
future activities. That the collective assessment of the
grounds of detention has led the learned Detaining
Authority to reach a subjective satisfaction for placing the
petitioner/detenu under the preventive detention. That the
activities in which the petitioner/detenu has indulged, are
highly objectionable and prejudicial, which are adversely
affecting the peace and tranquility in the society. That the
petitioner/detenu was found in close touch with the
unlawful elements. That the petitioner/detenu is involved
in the case FIR No. 38/2023 under Sections 13 ULA (P)
Page 5 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
Act, 120-B, 505-B IPC of Police Station Nowhatta. That the
details of the illegal activities of the petitioner/detenu are
delineated in the grounds of detention as also in the
dossier. That the learned Advisory Board constituted under
Section 14 of the PSA upon examination of the case of the
petitioner/detenu, accorded approval as per its opinion on
reference.
The learned Detaining Authority in it’s reply
affidavit has also placed reliance on the authoritative
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in
“Hardhan Saha vs State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCC
198; Gautam Jain vs Union of India & Anr 2017 (1)
J&K Law Times Vol. 1 (SC) P.1; Maneka Gandhi vs
Union of India, 1978 AIR SC 597; and State of
Bombay vs Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC
157.”
5) I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate and Mr. Mubashir
Malik, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents.
6) Learned counsel for the petitioner while
reiterating his stand taken by him as per the averments of
the petition, contended that the petitioner/detenu is
innocent and has never been involved in the alleged
activities. He contended that the petitioner/detenu was
Page 6 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
taken into custody during Naka on 16.10.2023 and got
involved in case FIR No. 38/2023 by the Police Station,
Nowhatta. That the learned trial Court granted him bail in
the case FIR on 10.02.2024, whereafter he was detained
under the garb of the impugned order dated 29th March,
2024.
That the case FIR bearing No. 38/2023
registered with Police Station, Nowhatta, in which the
petitioner/detenu was released on bail by the competent
trial Court on 10.02.2024, has been made the main basis
for passing of the impugned detention order. He further
contended that the case FIR No. 38/2023 was investigated
for the commission of the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 13 ULA (P) Act, 120-B, 505-B IPC and the
final police report/charge sheet was also produced by the
police concerned before the trial Court, in which the
petitioner/detenu was granted bail on 10.02.2024. The
learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu further
contended that since the petitioner/detenu was admitted
to bail by the learned trial court immediately upon his
arrest, as such, it is understood that the trial Court
granted the concession of bail to the petitioner/detenu
upon his satisfaction to the effect that accusation against
him is not prima facie true.
Page 7 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
The learned counsel further contended that
there appears to be no livelink or proximity between the
alleged act of the petitioner/detenu dated 16th Oct. 2023
leading to the registration of case FIR No. 38/2023 of PS
Nowhatta and the need for issuance of the impugned
detention order dated 29.03.2024, having a gap of about a
year. He also contended that since his arrest in the case
FIR No. 38/2023 on 16.10.2023, he remained
continuously under detention in the said case FIR, until he
was released on 10.02.2024 in pursuance of bail order and
was again detained under the impugned detention order
dated 29th March, 2024. The learned counsel also
contended that the charge against the petitioner/detenu as
per case FIR No. 38/2023 of PS Nowhatta, is totally
baseless and fabricated, as no objectionable posters came
to be recovered pursuant to his disclosure and
identification, which fact is clear from the evidence
recorded at the trial of the case FIR No. 38/2023 of PS,
Nowhatta, pending disposal before the learned trial Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu
also contended that the procedural guarantees under
Article 22 (5) and Section 13 of the PSA were observed in
breach as the copy of FIR and the statements of witnesses
recorded during the investigation of the case as well as the
grounds of detention, were not furnished to the
petitioner/detenu in time, thus disabling him to make an
Page 8 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
earliest representation against his detention. He also
argued that while the criminal case was pending trial
against the petitioner/detenu, there was no justification for
his preventive detention in parallel and the respondents
even if aggrieved, could have assailed the bail order, which
has not been done.
The learned counsel in support of his arguments, placed reliance on the Division Bench
judgments of this Court passed in “Bilal Ahmad Dar vs
Union Territory of J&K and Anr, LPA WP(Crl) No.
462/2022 decided on 02.03.2024; Hamid Farooq Bhat
vs Union Territory of J&K and Anr, LPA No. 150/2022,
decided on 8th Sept. 2023″.
While placing reliance on the aforesaid
judgments of this Court, the learned counsel for the
petitioner/detenu submitted that it has been held in LPA
WP(Crl) No. 462/2022 and LPA No. 150/2022, cited
supra that, “An order of preventive detention becomes
unsustainable in law, if the detenu has not been
provided with all the material that has formed the
basis of detention.”
Page 9 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
The learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu
prayed for setting aside of the impugned order of detention
and release of the petitioner/detenu.
7) Per contra, the learned counsel representing the
respondents Mr. Mubashir Malik, learned Deputy
Advocate General, also reiterated his stand taken in the
reply affidavit. He contended that the detention order
impugned in the petition does not suffer from any illegality
or perversity, as the same was passed by the learned
Detaining Authority in exercise of its powers vested in it, in
terms of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (a) (i) of the PSA,
upon his due application of mind, having regard to the
conduct of the petitioner/detenu and his apprehension of
repeating the commission of unlawful activities. He
submitted that the object of the preventive detention is to
prevent an individual from committing any illegal activity
prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance
of the social order and not to punish him. He further
contended that the preventive detention is not the parallel
proceedings of a trial, which is held by a court and is
concluded on the basis of the evidence. He further
contended that the petitioner/detenu was working as an
upper ground worker of banned outfits, who were carrying
out anti-national activities including transportation of
Page 10 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
terrorists and providing shelter to them. It was also
contended by the learned Deputy Advocate General that
the learned Advisory Board constituted under Section 14 of
the PSA on reference, examined the case against the
petitioner/detenu and made its opinion as conveyed vide
order dated 30th April, 2024 that the preventive detention
of the petitioner/detenu appears to be imperative, with a
view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the security of the State.
He further contended that the procedural
formalities as mandated under Article 22(5) of the PSA
were complied with by furnishing to the petitioner/detenu
copies of detention order and the grounds of detention
immediately upon his arrest and the grounds of detention
were read over and explained to him in his local language.
He contended that even the grant of bail in criminal
offence cannot debar the Detaining Authority to order the
preventive detention of an individual, which appears to be
imperative and unavoidable. He also contended that,
preventive detention is aimed at to protect the society and
that there is immediate and direct link between the
petitioner/detenu’s past conduct and likelihood of his
repetition of the same.
The learned UT counsel while placing reliance on
the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited
Page 11 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
as “Hardhan Saha vs State of West Bengal (1975) 3
SCC 198″ submitted that it has been observed in the said
case that, there is no parallel between prosecution in a
court of law and a detention order under the PSA. That one
is punitive action and the other is preventive act. That in one
case, a person is punished to prove his guilt and the
standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in
preventive detention, a man is prevented from doing
something, which it is necessary for the reasons mentioned
in the Act, to prevent.
On the basis of his reliance placed on the case
titled as “Gautam Jain vs Union of India & Anr 2017
(1) J&K Law Times Vol. 1 (SC) P.1″ the learned UT
counsel argued that the personal liberty of an individual
may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge
or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to
imprisonment. That where a person is facing trial on a
criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal
liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he
has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted
of the charge, in case prosecution fails to bring home his
guilt. That, however, where such a person is convicted of
offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given
adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also to
adduce evidence in his defense. That, however, framers of
the Constitution have, by incorporating Article 22(5) in the
Page 12 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a
formal charge and trial. That it’s aim and object is to save
the society from the activities that are likely to deprive a
large number of people of their right to life and personal
liberty. That in such a case, it would be dangerous for the
people to wait and watch, as by the time, the person
having dangerous designs, would execute his plans,
exposing general public to risk and causing colossal
damage to the life and property.
The learned UT counsel while placing reliance on
another authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
cited as “State of Bombay vs Atma Ram Shridhar
Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157″ contended that it was inter
alia observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the referred
case that, “As has been generally observed, this is a
matter for the subjective decision of the Government
and that cannot be substituted by an objective test in a
court of law. Such detention orders are passed on
information and materials which may not be strictly
admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act in a
court, but which the law, taking into consideration the
needs and exigencies of administration, has allowed to
be considered sufficient for the subjective decision of
the Government.”
Page 13 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
On the strength of the reliance placed on the
above referred judgments, the learned UT counsel
contended that it has been held in the cited judgments
that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to
the society. That Court must be conscious that the
satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is “subjective” in
nature and the court cannot substitute its opinion for the
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and
interfere with the order of detention.
It was also held in one of the relied upon cases
that, “However, where an individual’s liberty comes in
conflict with the interests of the Security of the State
or maintenance of public order, then the liberty of the
individual must give way to the larger interest of the
nation.”
8) The learned UT counsel prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
9) I have perused the instant petition, reply
affidavit filed by the respondents and the copies of
documents enclosed with the petition. I have also gone
through the Xerox copy of the detention record produced
by the learned counsel for the respondents.
10) It appears from the perusal of the record that
admittedly the registration of case FIR No. 38/2023 under
Sections 13 ULA (P) Act, 120-B, 505-B IPC, registered with
Page 14 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
Police Station, Nowhatta, constitutes as the main basis for
issuance of the impugned detention order by the
respondents, in addition to the other allegations/inputs
against the petitioner/detenu regarding his involvement in
the commission of unlawful activities. Perusal of the
documents relating to the case FIR No. 38/2023 of PS
Nowhatta, reveals that the petitioner/detenu was arrested
during Naka on 16.10.2023, within the premises of Police
Station, Nowhatta, remained under detention right from
16.10.2023 until he was released on bail on 10.02.2024,
pursuant to the bail order of the competent Trial Court. It
is admitted case of the respondents that the
petitioner/detenu was again arrested in execution of PSA
warrant by P/S Nowhatta and lodged in the Central Jail,
Srinagar. It is the case of the petitioner/detenu that after
his release in pursuance of the bail order dated
10.02.2024, he was again arrested some more than a year
and shifted to Central Jail, Srinagar under the authority of
the impugned preventive detention order dated 29 March,
2024.
11) It was contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/detenu that the petitioner/detenu was bailed out
in the case FIR No. 38/2023 of PS Nowhatta under
Sections 13 ULA (P) Act, 120-B, 505-B IPC, only after the
competent trial Court was convinced in the light of the
evidence that the allegations against the petitioner/detenu
Page 15 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
do not seem to be prima facie true. However, such an
opinion of the learned trial Court is deemed to have been
made for the limited purpose of consideration of his bail
order and is always subject to the outcome of the trial. The
learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu during his
arguments inter alia contended that no disclosure was
made by the petitioner/detenu in respect of the
objectionable posters and, as such, nothing was recovered
at his instance. The learned counsel also contended during
his arguments that the petitioner/detenu was implicated in
the case FIR No. 38/2023 by PS Nowhatta, only on the
apprehension of his misconduct to instigate youth to
indulge in anti-national activities.
In the opinion of this Court, there appears to be
no proximate or livelink between the circumstances/
allegations leading to the registration of case FIR No.
38/2022 of PS Nowhatta and need for issuance of the
impugned detention order, maintaining a gap of about a
year. The impugned detention order on this account,
appears to be suffering from illegality. This Court feels
fortified in its opinion by the authoritative judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in “Rajinder Arora vs.
Union of India and others” AIR 2006 (4) SCC 796,
decided on 10.03.2006″. The relevant paras of the
judgment are reproduced as hereunder:-
Page 16 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
“The conspectus of the above decisions can be
summarized thus: The question whether the
prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to
pass an order of detention is proximate to the time
when the order is made or the livelink between the
prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is
snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case. No hard and fast rule can be precisely
formulated that would be applicable under all
circumstances and no exhaustive guidelines can be
laid down in that behalf. It follows that the test of
proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely
counting number of months between the offending
acts and the order of detention. However, when there
is undue and long delay between the prejudicial
activities and the passing of detention order, the
court has to scrutinize whether the detaining
authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay
and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation
as to why such a delay has occasioned, when called
upon to answer and further the court has to
investigate whether the causal connection has been
broken in the circumstances of each case.
Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and
unexplained delay between the date of order of
detention and the date of securing the arrest of the
detenu, such a delay would throw considerable
doubt on the genuineness of the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority leading to a
legitimate inference that the detaining authority was
not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the
necessity for detaining the detenu with a view to
preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner.”
12) The learned Detaining Authority has not
addressed the aspect as to how a normal criminal law is
inadequate to deal with the petitioner/detenu. The
petitioner/detenu was admitted to bail by the competent
Trial Court after a period of about a year on 10.02. 2024,
with strict conditions appended to the bail order. Said
conditions seem to be sufficient to regulate and keep a
surveillance on the activities of the petitioner/detenu. It is
not the case of the learned Detaining Authority that the
bail order dated 10.02.2024 was assailed before any
competent forum and prayer of the UT for cancellation of
Page 17 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
the bail was not allowed. It is also not the case of the
respondents that the petitioner/detenu immediately after
his release in the case FIR No. 38/2023 of PS Nowhatta
pursuant to the bail order dated 10th Feb. 2024, indulged
in any illegal activity, with any specific allegation. On this
account also, the issuance of the impugned detention order
was not unavoidable.
13) In “Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5
SCC 244”, the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex
Court at Paras 21, 29 & 30 deserve a needful mention
“21. It is all very well to say that preventive
detention is preventive not punitive. The truth of the
matter, though, is that in substance a detention
order of one year (or any other period) is a
punishment of one year’s imprisonment. What
difference is it to the detenu whether his
imprisonment is called preventive or punitive?
***
29. Preventive detention is, by nature, repugnant
to democratic ideas and an anathema to the Rule of
law. No such law exists in the USA and in England
(except during war time). Since, however, Article
22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India permits
preventive detention, we cannot hold it illegal but we
must confine the power of preventive detention
within very narrow limits, otherwise we will be
taking away the great right to liberty guaranteed by
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which was
won after long, arduous and historic struggles. It
follows, therefore, that if the ordinary law of the land
(the Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal
with a situation, recourse to a preventive detention
law will be illegal.”
“30. Whenever an order under a preventive detention
law is challenged one of the questions the court
must ask in deciding its legality is: was the ordinary
law of the land sufficient to deal with the situation?
If the answer is in the affirmative, the detention
order will be illegal. In the present case, the charge
against the detenu was of selling expired drugs after
changing their labels. Surely the relevant provisions
in the Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
were sufficient to deal with this situation. Hence, in
Page 18 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
our opinion, for this reason also the detention order
in question was illegal.”
14) In “Vijay Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1984)
3 SCC 14″, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at Para 32 of the
judgment through Hon’ble E.S.Venkataramiah, J. (as the Chief
Justice then was) as under:-
“32….It is well settled that the law of preventive
detention is a hard law and therefore it should be
strictly construed. Care should be taken that the
liberty of a person is not jeopardized unless his case
falls squarely within the four corners of the relevant
law. The law of preventive detention should not be
used merely to clip the wings of an Accused who is
involved in a criminal prosecution. It is not intended
for the purpose of keeping a man under detention
when under ordinary criminal law it may not be
possible to resist the issue of orders of bail, unless
the material available is such as would satisfy the
requirements of the legal provisions authorizing
such detention. When a person is enlarged on bail
by a competent criminal court, great caution should
be exercised in scrutinizing the validity of an order of
preventive detention which is based on the very
same charge which is to be tried by the criminal
court.”
15) In “A.K.Roy vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC
271″ it was held at Para 70 of the judgment as under:-
“70. *** We have the authority of the decisions in …
for saying that the fundamental rights conferred by
the different articles of Part III of the Constitution
are not mutually exclusive and that therefore, a law
of preventive detention which falls within Article 22
must also meet the requirements of Articles 14, 19
and 21.”
16) This Court is also in agreement with the
authoritative law relied upon by counsel for the
respondents Mr. Mubashir Malik, learned Deputy Advocate
General to the effect that the object of the preventive
detention of an individual is preventive in nature and not
punitive. Admittedly, the preventive detention cannot be
Page 19 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
supposed to be a parallel proceeding. The object of the
preventive detention is to deter a person in advance from
indulging in any anti-national or anti-social activities
prejudicial to the security of the State and/or interests of
the society. Admittedly, where an individual liberty and the
right of the entire society to a peaceful life are pitted
together, the individual liberty has to give way to the social
interest or the interest of the State, as the case may be.
However, as hereinbefore mentioned, there does not appear
to be a livelink between the alleged acts of 16.10.2023,
resulting in the registration of case FIR No. 38/2023 with
Police Station Nowhatta and the need for issuance of the
impugned detention, order with a gap of about a year. It is
also not the case of the respondents that the
petitioner/detenu upon his release pursuant to the bail
order, repeated the alleged unlawful activities.
17) The perusal of the record reveals that the
petitioner/detenu was detained under preventive detention
immediately after his release in the case FIR.
18) The preventive detention needs to be passed with
great care and caution keeping in mind that a citizens most
valuable and inherent human right is being curtailed. The
arrests in general and the preventive detentions in
particular are an exception to the most cherished
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Page 20 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
Constitution of India. The preventive detentions are made
on the basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority in relation to an apprehended conduct of the
detenu by considering his past activities without being
backed by an immediate complaint as in the case of the
registration of the FIR and, as such, is a valuable trust in
the hands of the trustees. The provisions of Clauses (1) and
(2) of Article 22 of our Constitution are not applicable in
the case of preventive detentions. So, the provisions of
Clause (5) of the Article 22 of our Constitution, with just
exception as mentioned in Clause (6), together with the
relevant provisions of the Section 8 of PSA requiring for
application of mind, subjective satisfaction, inevitability of
the detention order, proper and prompt communication of
the grounds of detention and the information of liberty to
make a representation against the detention order, are the
imperative and inevitable conditions rather mandatory
requirements for passing of a detention order.
19) For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that it may meet the ends of justice in case the
impugned detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/01/2024
dated 29th March, 2024, issued by the respondent No. 2, is
quashed and the petitioner/detenu namely Salman Riyaz
Khan S/o Reyaz Khan R/o Pulwama tral A/P Firdous Abad
Batmaloo, Srinagar, is ordered to be released from his
Page 21 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024
preventive detention, provided he is not involved in any
other case.
20) It is accordingly ordered.
21) The Xerox detention record is ordered to be
returned to the learned Deputy Advocate General
concerned.
22) Disposed of.
(MOHD. YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
14.08.2025
"Ayaz"
i) Whether the Judgment is reportable in law books/journals: ? Yes.
ii) Whether judgment is reportable in Media(Print/Electronic) ? No
Page 22 of 22 HCP No. 103/2024