Salman Riyaz Khan vs Ut Of J&K

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