Srinagar, Nov 03 (KNS): The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed the Public Safety Act detention of a 27-year-old Pulwama resident, observing that the order was based on “stale allegations” and reflected “non-application of mind” by the detaining authority.

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, while allowing the habeas corpus petition filed by Sajad Ahmad Bhat alias Baaber, a resident of Drabgam, Rajpora in Pulwama, held that the District Magistrate had issued the detention order nearly five years after the registration of an FIR against him, a delay that “snaps the proximate link between alleged conduct and preventive action.”

“The detention order issued in 2025 on the basis of a 2020 FIR is an outcome of stale grounds,” the court said as per KNS, adding that there was no live and proximate connection between Bhat’s alleged activities and the need to detain him in 2025.

Bhat had been booked in FIR No. 119 of 2020 under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act and Sections 18, 23, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly aiding terrorists. He was granted bail by the competent court in November 2023. Despite this, the District Magistrate, Pulwama, passed the detention order on April 30, 2025, citing threats to public order and security.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocates Zameer Abdullah and Zahir Abdullah argued that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind, procedural lapses, and violation of constitutional safeguards. They contended that the documents forming the basis of detention were not supplied to the detainee, depriving him of the right to make an effective representation.

Government Advocate Furqaan Yaqoob, appearing for the Union Territory administration, defended the order, stating that the detenue had reactivated his links with terrorists and posed a threat to peace in the region.Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel

After hearing both sides, Justice Kazmi held that the government had failed to demonstrate why preventive detention was necessary when the “ordinary law of the land” was sufficient to deal with the allegations.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), the judge observed: “If the authorities fail to show that substantive law was insufficient to prevent the alleged activities, the detention order cannot be sustained.”

The court also relied on apex court judgments in Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana (2021) and Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana (2018), which held that preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for regular criminal proceedings or based on outdated material.

“A preventive detention order based on stale material amounts to punishment without trial,” the court noted, adding that such orders must rest on a “reasonable prognosis of future behaviour” and not on distant past conduct.

The bench said the authorities had failed to establish any fresh grounds linking Bhat to recent activities prejudicial to security or public order. “The respondents have failed to indicate how the substantive law invoked earlier was not sufficient to deter the detenue from indulging in the alleged activities,” the judgment read.

Finding no justification for preventive custody, the court quashed detention order, passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, and directed the authorities to release Sajad Ahmad Bhat forthwith, “if not required in any other case.”

“The petition is allowed,” Justice Kazmi concluded. “The detention being not in consonance with law deserves to be quashed.”(KNS)