HCP No. 139/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No. 139/2024 Pronounced on : 09.07.2026 Uploaded on : 10.07.2026 Abdul Ghafor, Age 55 years, S/o Meer Ahmed, R/o Mayanmar, temporary residing at Sunjwan Bathindi, Jammu & presently lodged Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu. ….Petitioners Through:- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate. V/S 1. UT of J&K Th. Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar. 2. Financial Commissioner (ACS), Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar. 3. Director General of Police, J&K Jammu. 4. District Magistrate, Jammu. 5. Special Director General, CID J&K, Jammu. 6. Superintendent Central Jail, Kotbhalwal, District Jammu. 7. Station House Officer, Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu. …..Respondents Through:- Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG \ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE ORDER 09.07.2026 01. Through the medium of this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner, claiming to be a Myanmar national and called Rohingya, putting up at a temporary camp at Jammu, seeks quashment of the detention order No. Home/PB-V/941 of 2023 dated 03.05.2023 together with confirmation order HCP No. 139/2024 No. Home/PB-V/254 of 2023 dated 31.10.2023 issued by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and directing the respondents to produce the petitioner before this Court and set him free forthwith. 02. During the pendency of this petition, the impugned order was stated to have expired and another order dated 31.10.2023 came to be passed under the Public Safety Act and on expiry of that order, another order dated 29.04.2025 was passed, which was executed on 04.05.2025. 03. All the orders impugned in this petition whereby the petitioner had been ordered to be detained, have outlived their lives and the petitioner is stated to have again detained by passing fresh order, as such, this petition has been rendered infructuous. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the respondents cannot pass fresh orders for detention of the petitioner, in terms of the Public Safety Act, as such, the petitioner did not feel any need to challenge the latest detention order and this petition can be heard and disposed of. 05. It appears that the contention made on behalf of the petitioner is not tenable as all the impugned orders issued earlier have outlived their life and the petition has been rendered infructuous, as such, there is no need to decide this petition on merits. The petitioner shall be well advised to HCP No. 139/2024 challenge the latest detention order, if aggrieved, in accordance with law. 06. The petition is, thus, disposed of having been rendered infructuous, with liberty as above. (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU 09.07.2026 Naresh/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No