Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Rouf Ahmad Lone vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 18 April, 2026
Page |1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No.198/2025
Reserved on: 09.04.2026
Pronounced on: 18.04.2026
Rouf Ahmad Lone
S/O Late Abdul Majeed Lone
Through his mother Haleema Bano
W/O Late Abdul Majeed Lone
R/O Lelhara, Kakapora, Pulwama.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Sr.Advocate S.T.Hussain with
Advocate Nida Nazir.
Advocate Adil Hamid.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K through
Principal Secretary to Govt. Home Department,
J&K Civil Sectt. Srinagar.
2. District Magistrate, Pulwama.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Pulwama.
4. Superintendent, District Jail, Udhampur.
...Respondent(s)
Through: GA Furqan Yaqoob Sofi.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. By virtue of Detention Order No. 06/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025
(for short ‘impugned order’) passed by respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, Pulwama the detenue namely Rouf Ahmad Lone S/O Late
Abdul Majeed Lone R/O Lelhara, Kakapora, Pulwama was ordered to
be detained under preventive custody in terms of Section-8 of J&K
Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) with a view to prevent
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of State, to
Page |2
warrant immediate measures to be taken against him to prevent him
from indulging in such activities.
2. Aggrieved of the said detention order, detenue, through his mother, has
filed the present petition seeking quashment of the same on the grounds,
that the detenue, in terms of the impugned order, has been detained
under the Act on false and flimsy grounds without any justification; that
the grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining
authority and no prudent man can make an effective and meaningful
representation against these allegations. Further plea of the detenue is
that he has not been provided the material/documents relied upon by the
detaining authority, so as to make an effective representation before the
detaining authority; that he was not informed that he can make a
representation before the District Magistrate, therefore, a valuable right
of the detenue stands defeated; that the Detaining authority, while
passing the impugned order, has relied upon the stale grounds,
therefore, the same is not sustainable. It was prayed to quash the
impugned order for the afore-stated grounds.
3. Reply affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2, vehemently,
resisting the petition. It is contended that detaining a person under the
provisions of Public Safety Act is always preventive in nature and its
sole aim is to prevent a person from pursuing anti-national/anti-social
activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order/security of the State. In the instant case there is enough material
against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the
normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing
with his anti-national activities and it is evident that the detenue is
Page |3
highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-national and
unlawful activities.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record
produced by learned counsel for the respondents and considered.
5. The detention record, on its perusal, would indicate that the detenue was
earlier arrested in a case registered vide FIR No.19/2022 under sections
18, 19, 20, 38, 39 UAP Act at P/S Kakapora, and was released on bail
on 17.10.2022. Thereafter, again the detenue was kept under preventive
measures on 10.03.2025, 23.03.2025 and 24.04.2025 under section 126
of BNSS, for his involvement in anti-national activities, but was
released on furnishing surety bonds. The detenue however, did not
mend his behavior, which is suggestive of the fact that the detaining
authority in order to curb the criminal/anti-national activities of the
detenue, detained him under the provisions of Public Safety Act.
6. It would be apt to say that right of personal liberty is most precious
right, guaranteed under the Constitution. A person is not to be deprived
of his personal liberty, except in accordance with procedures established
under law and the procedure as laid down in the case ‘Maneka Gandhi
vs. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC 597)’, is to be just and fair. The
personal liberty may be curtailed where a person faces a criminal charge
or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. 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. Where such person is
convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given
Page |4
adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in
his defense.
7. However, framers of the Constitution have, by incorporating Article
22(5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a
formal charge and trial and without such person being held guilty of an
offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim
and object are to save society from activities that are likely to deprive a
large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such
a case it would be dangerous, for the people at large, to wait and watch
as by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person, having
dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing general public to
risk and causing colossal damage to life and property. It is, for that
reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent a person bent
upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action.
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for
enactment of preventive detention law.
8. Having glance of the grounds of detention, it is clear that right from the
year 2022 till 2025, the detenue was kept under preventive measures for
his involvement in criminal/anti-national activities. It was found that on
December, 2021 one unknown person came to the residential house of
the detenue and gave him Rs.50,000/- on the directions of one Reyaz
Ahmad Dar (now killed LeT terrorist) and later on said Reyaz Ahmad
Dar called him via ‘Telegram’ and told the detenue to hand over the
same amount to Aquib Ahmad Bhat of Pampore. After one month same
unknown person came to the detenue’s residential house and gave
Rs.39,50,000/- and the detenue handed over the same amount to Aqib
Ahmad Bhat of Pampore. Said Aqib Ahmad Bhat also told the detenue
Page |5
that Reyaz Ahmad Dar (now killed LeT terrorist) directed the detenue
to arrange a SIM card for him. A case FIR No.19/2022 under sections
18, 19, 20, 38, 39 ULAP Act was registered against the detenue in
Police Station, Kakapora. Accordingly, the detenue was arrested in the
said case. However, after his release, he did not desist himself from
indulging in anti-national activities. His inclination towards secessionist
elements gave him a place in ‘LeT’ militant outfit, of which he became
an active member. The detenue was involved in carrying various anti-
national activities alongwith other operatives of ‘LeT’ banned outfit,
namely Reyaz Ahmad Dar (now killed ‘LeT’ terrorist). The detaining
authority after keeping in view the activities of the detenue highly
prejudicial to the security of the State, detained him under preventive
custody, in terms of the impugned order, which is under challenge in the
present petition.
9. The record, produced by the State, reveals that vide communication No.
DJU/DS/25/4102-11 dated 01.05.2025, the detenue was informed to
make a representation to the detaining authority as also to the
Government against his detention order if the detenue so desires. In
compliance to District Magistrate’s detention order, the warrant was
executed by SI Mohd. Yousaf of DPL Pulwama, by supplying the
copies of detention warrant, notice of detention, grounds of detention,
dossier, copies of complaints and Beat report against a proper receipt.
Further the execution report reveals that the detenue can make a
representation to the Government. It is also revealed that the detention
warrant and grounds of detention were read over and explained to the
detenue in Urdu/Kashmiri language which the detenue understood fully
Page |6
and signatures of detenue was also obtained. Thus, the contention of the
petitioner for not supplying the material is not sustainable.
10.It would be apt to refer to the observations made by the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘The State of Bombay v.
Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157′. Para- 5 of the said
judgment lays law on the point, which is profitable to be reproduced
hereunder:
“5. It has to be borne in mind that the legislation in
question is not an emergency legislation. The powers of
preventive detention under this Act of 1950 are in
addition to those contained in the Criminal Procedure
Code, where preventive detention is followed by an
inquiry or trial. By its very nature, preventive detention is
aimed at preventing the commission of an offence or
preventing the detained person from achieving a certain
end. The authority making the order therefore cannot
always be in possession of full detailed information when
it passes the order and the information in its possession
may fall far short of legal proof of any specific offence,
although it may be indicative of a strong probability of
the impending commission of a prejudicial act. Section a
of the Preventive Detention Act therefore requires that
the Central Government or the State Government must
be satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to
(1) the defence of India, the relations of India with
foreign powers, or the security of India, or (2) the
security of the State or the maintenance of public order,
or (3) the maintenance of supplies and services essential
to the community ……… it is necessary So to do, make an
order directing that such person be detained. According
to the wording of section 3, therefore, before the
Government can pass an order of preventive detention it
must be satisfied with respect to the individual person
that his activities are directed against one or other of the
three objects mentioned in the section, and that the
detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to
prevent him from acting in such a manner. The wording
of the section thus clearly shows that it is the satisfaction
of the Central Government or the State Government on
the point which alone is necessary to be established. It is
significant that while the objects intended to be defeated
are mentioned, the different methods, acts or omissions
by which that can be done are not mentioned, as it is not
humanly possible to give such an exhaustive list. The
satisfaction of the Government however must be based
Page |7on some grounds. There can be no satisfaction if there
are no grounds for the same. There may be a divergence
of opinion as to whether certain grounds are sufficient to
bring about the satisfaction required by the section. One
person may think one way, another the other way. If,
therefore, the grounds on which it is stated that the
Central Government or the State Government was
satisfied are such as a rational human being can
consider connected in some manner with the objects
which were to be prevented from being attained, the
question of satisfaction except on the ground of mala
fides cannot be challenged in a court. Whether in a
particular case the grounds are sufficient or not,
according to the opinion of any person or body other
than the Central Government or the State Government, is
ruled out by the wording of the section. It is not for the
court to sit in the place of the Central Government or the
State Government and try to deter- mine if it would have
come to the same conclusion as the Central or the State
Government. 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.”
11. In light of the aforesaid legal position settled by the Six-Judge
Constitution Bench way back in the year 1951, the scope of looking
into the manner in which the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the
detaining authority, is limited. This Court, while examining the
material, which is made basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority, would not act as a court of appeal and find fault with the
satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of the material before
detaining authority another view was possible.
12.The courts do not even go into the questions as to whether the facts
mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false. The reason
for the rule is that to decide this, evidence may have to be taken by the
Page |8
courts and that it is not the policy of the law of preventive detention.
This matter lies within the competence of the advisory board.
13.Those who are responsible for national security or for maintenance of
public order must be the sole judges of what the national security,
public order or security of the State requires. Preventive detention is
devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man
for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to
prevent him from doing. Justification for such detention is suspicion or
reasonable probability and not criminal conviction, which can only be
warranted by legal evidence. Thus, any preventive measures, even if
they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, as held by the
Supreme Court in the case ‘Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration &
Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1143′, do not contribute in any way of the nature of
punishment.
14.Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man
for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from
doing so, the Supreme Court held in the case ‘Naresh Kumar Goyal v.
Union of India & Ors., 2005 (8) SCC 276′, and reiterated in the
judgment in a case titled ‘Union of India and another v. Dimple
Happy Dhakad‘ (AIR 2019 SC 3428) that an order of detention is not
a curative or reformative or punitive, but a preventive action,
acknowledged object of which being to prevent anti-social and
subversive elements from endangering the welfare of the country or
security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from
indulging in anti-national activities or smuggling activities or from
engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society.
Page |9
Rulings on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive
detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to
punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does
it and to prevent him from doing so.
15. In the backdrop of foregoing discussion, impugned detention order is
upheld and the petition is found devoid of any merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed along-with pending application(s).
16. Scanned detention record, as produced, be returned to learned counsel
for respondents.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
Srinagar
18.04.2026
Muzammil. Q
Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No