HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 389/2024 CM No. (8093/2024) Mubashir Nazir Bhat …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate VERSUS UT of J&K And Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER 09.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Wajid Haseeb, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting counsel to Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. Detention record produced today in photostat form also perused. 3. The petitioner- Mubashir Nazir Bhat, acting through his brother- Umar Nazir Bhat, came forward with institution of present writ petition on 16.12.2024 being aggrieved of preventive detention custody imposed upon him by the Sr. No. 10 Regular exercise of authority on the part of the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Srinagar under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 by issuance of an order No. DMS/PSA/30/2024 dated 11.10.2024 by holding the petitioner being indulgent in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State warranting his preventive detention. 4. The petitioner was ordered to be arrested and detained at Special Jail (Correctional Home) Pulwama. 5. The issuance of said detention order led to the arrest of the petitioner taking place on 15.10.2024 when detention warrant executing officer carried out execution of the detention order on 15.10.2024 from which date onwards the petitioner is in continuing state of custody which is meant to last for two years expiring by coming October, 2026. Thus, the petitioner is left only with three/four months of custody period to serve but investing his trust in the Constitutional Court to adjudge the legality of his preventive detention custody. 6. The petitioner’s preventive detention custody has followed heels of his purported release from previous preventive detention custody which had come to visit him also by the order of the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Srinagar under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 in September, 2022, and the petitioner came to be released after expiry of detention period. There cannot be a dispute to the fact that the petitioner was meant to be released from his preventive detention custody effected under order No. DMS/PSA/08/2022 dated 08.09.2022 after expiry of detention period. 7. The petitioner perhaps was kept under closed surveillance and came to be bound down on 14.09.2024 by purported reference to proceedings under section 126/170 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8. When this Court peruses the very opening line of present impugned detention order No. DMS/PSA/30/2024 dated 11.10.2024, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Srinagar in his dossier No. LGL/Det/2024/26357-60 dated 07.10.2024 was coming forward with a statement that observed state of activities of the petitioner were found to be objectionable warranting his preventive detention custody. 9. Now, if the date of dossier is 07.10.2024, then it means the study-cum-observance period with respect to the alleged state of activities of the petitioner in his state of personal liberty is only less than 30 days. In said 30 days of his personal liberty state, if it is assumed that the petitioner was released from his preventive detention custody, then what are the reportable facts which were with the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Srinagar to cite for the cognizance of the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Srinagar are altogether missing from the dossier and obviously would miss mention from the grounds of detention. 10. This Court has no iota of doubt that the petitioner’s preventive detention, in terms of an exercise initiated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP) Srinagar and culminated by the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Srinagar, was with a preconceived mind to somehow keep the petitioner detained and if the timeline goes then the petitioner perhaps is in the fourth year of his continuing custody except for brief spell of few days’ liberty. 11. The petitioner’s preventive detention is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law resorted to by the Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP) Srinagar complimented by the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Srinagar and confirmed by the Home Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir without any respect to the constitutional sensitivity which is meant to attend exercise of power in the matter of carrying out preventive detention custody of a citizen and which is not meant to come as a matter of routine and ritual but only as an exceptional exercise leaving no other option for the District Police/Administration other than getting the person deprived of his personal liberty. 12. Accordingly, this Court declares detention order No. DMS/PSA/30/2024 dated 11.10.2024 read with approval/confirmation/extension order/s of the Home Department all illegal which are hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty forthwith from the place of confinement wherever he is being kept held and to that regard the Superintendent concerned of the Jail to act in abidance. 13. Disposed of. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 09.07.2026 Akhil Dev