Mohd. Qayoom Through His Wife Nasima Bi vs UT Of J&K & Ors.

Through the medium of the present petition, challenge has been thrown to Order No. DMP/PSA/04 of 2025 dated 05.05.2025, issued by respondent No. 3-District Magistrate, Poonch (hereinafter referred to as “the detaining authority”), whereby the petitioner, namely, Mohd. Qayoom son of Dost Mohd., resident of Village Qasba, Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch (hereinafter referred to as “the detenue”), has been detained under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State^.

The petitioner has contended that the impugned detention order is based solely on two old FIRs registered with Police Station, Poonch, relating to the years 1989 and 1992. It has been submitted that the proceedings arising out of these two FIRs have culminated in imposition of fine upon the petitioner and, thereafter, no criminal or any other activity prejudicial to the security of the State is attributed to the petitioner. It is being contended that on the basis of stale incidents, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention, which is not sustainable in law. It has been further contended that the petitioner is an illiterate person and that the grounds of detention were not explained to him at the time of his detention, nor was the translated version of the material provided to him. It has also been contended that the petitioner has made a representation against the impugned order of detention, but the same has not been considered by the respondents. It has been further contended that the grounds of detention are a reproduction of the police dossier, which reflects non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

Respondent-detaining authority has filed its counter-affidavit in opposition to the petition. It has been contended in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has been categorized as an Over Ground Worker of terrorists and he has been found involved in covert subversive activities which pose a threat to national security. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention has been issued on the basis of credible inputs and material. According to the detaining authority, mention of FIRs in the grounds of detention is to show the background conduct of the petitioner, including his illegal act of crossing the Line of Control. It has been submitted that the detention order is based on recent activities of the petitioner. It has been further contended that the detaining authority has applied its independent mind to the material produced by the Sponsoring Agency and that the impugned order has not been issued in a mechanical manner. It has been further contended that the whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has been furnished to the petitioner and contents thereof have been explained to the petitioner in the language understood by him regarding which he has executed a proper document. It has been contended that the petitioner was duly informed of his right to make a representation to the Government and to the detaining authority. It has also been contended that the representation made by the petitioner has been dealt with in accordance with law. In support of their contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the record, including the detention record.

The first ground that has been urged by the petitioner for assailing the impugned order of detention is that the same is based upon stale incidents which form basis of FIR No. 179/1989 and FIR No. 27/1992 registered with Police Station, Poonch, and that no recent activity prejudicial to the security of the State has been attributed to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed because the same is based upon stale incidents having no live and proximate link with the date of issuance of the said order.

In the above context, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, no doubt, it bears reference of FIR No. 179/1989 of Police Station, Poonch, pertaining to the incident dated 21.11.1989 and FIR No. 27/1992 of Police Station, Poonch, relating to the incident dated 14.03.1992, but there is also reference in the grounds of detention to an incident dated 14.04.2025. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that on the said date, during the monitoring of the mobile phone seized from the petitioner, a proxy SIM card was found to be inserted in the phone. It is further alleged that during analysis of the phone, it was found that the petitioner was using unregistered apps through which he was covertly found to be in touch with suspect contacts from Pakistan/PoJK, as well as the Gulf and other foreign countries. It was revealed that the petitioner was found to have suspicious chats with the suspect contacts, possibly ISI agents and Pakistan/PoJK-based terror operatives. The grounds of detention bear reference to a certificate from the Incharge, Monitoring Cell, and to the screenshots taken from the phone, copies whereof are part of the grounds of detention. The screenshots of the mobile phone seized from the petitioner reveal that he has uploaded images of arms and ammunition, as also images of terrorists. These screenshots also show that the petitioner has been in contact with several persons based in Pakistan and other foreign countries, which, according to the detaining authority, have links with ISI agents and Pakistan-based terror operatives. All this information has been gathered by the detaining authority in the month of April, 2025.

From the aforesaid material forming basis of the grounds of detention it appears that the petitioner has not been detained on the basis of his activities forming the subject matter of the FIRs registered in the years 1989 and 1992, but his detention is based on recent activities which came to the notice of the detaining authority in the month of April, 2025, while analyzing the phone seized from him. The description of the activities in which the petitioner was allegedly found to be involved upon analysis of the phone, is specific containing details with regard to the images uploaded by the petitioner, as also the description of the individuals with whom the petitioner was found to be in contact through unregistered apps. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his detention is based upon old and stale incidents is wholly misconceived.

The second contention raised by the petitioner is that he has not been explained the grounds of detention in the language which he understands, as he is an illiterate person. In the detention record, there is a document styled as “Receipt of Detention Warrant”, which is executed by the petitioner. As per the contents of the said document, as also the contents of the document styled as “Execution of PSA Warrant”, the contents of the grounds of detention have been read over and explained to the petitioner in Urdu, which he fully understands. In this regard, the Executing Official, Mr. Mohd. Rashid, has sworn an affidavit, a copy whereof is available in the detention record. The petitioner is also stated to have received the whole of the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated, comprising 20 leaves. Therefore, the detention record clearly goes on to show that the petitioner has been explained the contents of the grounds of detention at the time of providing him the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any substance.

Lastly, it has been contended that the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the detaining authority. In this regard, a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the respondents received the representation from the petitioner sometime in the first week of February, 2026. After obtaining a report from the CID, the representation was rejected by the respondents on 11.03.2026, and information in this regard was conveyed to the petitioner by the Superintendent, District Jail, Rajouri, immediately thereafter, on 24.03.2026. The receipt in this regard was executed by the petitioner, which is available in the detention record. Thus, the material available in the detention record would reveal that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered by the Home Department of the Government, whereafter it was rejected and the order of rejection was duly conveyed to the petitioner. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his representation has not been considered by the respondents is not supported by the material available in the detention record.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention bearing Order No. DMP/PSA/04 of 2025 dated 05.05.2025, issued by respondent No. 3-District Magistrate, Poonch. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed, along with the connected CM(s).

The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.