IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 99/2025 Sakeena Bano …..Petitioners Through: Mr. Owais Ashraf Shah, Advocate. Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others .….Respondents Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting counsel. Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE JU D GM EN T 0 5 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 6 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. Perused the respective side’s pleadings and the documents accompanying therewith. Also perused the detention record produced from the end of the respondents. 2. The petitioner-Sakeena Bano acting through her husband-Siraj-u-din Khan came forward with the institution of the present writ petition on 14.05.2025 while being in the state of preventive detention custody slapped upon her by the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir by reference to the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (PITNDPS) Act, 1988. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam, by virtue of a letter No. PSA-Cell/Dossier/2025/276-79 dated 08.03.2025, had submitted a dossier to the respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir by reporting alleged activities of the petitioner reckoned to fall within scope of mischief of PITNDPS Act, 1988 warranting her preventive detention which consequently resulted in issuance of the detention order No. DIVCOM“K”/62/2025 dated 03.04.2025 ordering preventive detention of the petitioner and her confinement in the Central Jail, Srinagar. 4. In the grounds of detention so formulated, the respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir refers the petitioner to be a notorious illicit drug peddler of the area, running an illegal trade of narcotics since long time and in the process becoming principal dealer of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by developing contacts with drug peddlers operative in the area. 5. The arrest of the petitioner by reference to FIR No.46/2023 under sections 8/20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (PITNDPS) Act, 1985 by the Police Station Chadoora, has been referred to portray the petitioner’s antecedents warranting her detention. 6. Pursuant to the preventive detention order above referred, the petitioner had come to be taken into custody on 05.04.2025 to be confined in the Central Jail, Srinagar wherein the petitioner is on verge of completing her one year detention period which came to be served upon her by virtue of Government Order No. Home/PB- V/743/2025 dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Home Department, UT of Jammu & Kashmir. 7. The period of detention fastened upon the petitioner was from 05.04.2025 till 04.04.2026. 8. The preventive detention of the petitioner has been assailed on the grounds as set out in the writ petition. 9. The counter affidavit to the writ petition came to be filed on 07.10.2025. 10. When this Court examines the grounds of detention, this Court finds that the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir is at a loss to figure out that if the alleged reported act of commission of offence had resulted in booking of the petitioner in FIR No.46/2023, then how come the alleged state of activities of the petitioner on the basis whereof she was being subjected to preventive detention have gone begging for registration of a criminal case/s against her. 11. The State cannot be heard to condone culpable and criminal state of activities of a subject warranting punitive punishment and switch over to preventive detention remedy as that would amount to judicial function to be taken over by the Executive. 12. This Court is convinced that resort to PITNDPS Act, 1988 has been made only to short circuit the criminal trial outcome of the petitioner by subjecting her to suffer punitive punishment before the verdict of the criminal court. 13. In the light of the aforesaid scenario, the preventive detention of the petitioner is held to be illegal, as such, Detention Order No. DIVCOM“K”/62/2025 dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, is hereby quashed with immediate effect. The petitioner is ordered to be restored to her personal liberty by her release from the concerned Jail for which the Superintendent concerned to carry out the compliance. 14. Disposed of, as indicated above. ( RAHUL BHARTI ) JUDGE Srinagar 05.03.2026 Muzammil Q Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No