HCP No. 242/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 28.04.2026 Pronounced on: 15.05.2026 Uploaded on: 15.05.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full HCP No.242/2025 NAYEEM AHMAD KHAN ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S) Through: - Mr. Z. A. Qureshi, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Athar Rashid, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with Mr. Haarish Khan, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.DMS/PSA/26/2025 dated 02.06.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, whereby the detenue, namely, Nayeem Ahmad Khan, has been placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K. 2) It has been contended by the petitioner that the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention are vague. It has been submitted that impugned detention order has been passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent HCP No. 242/2025 and stale, on the basis of which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner. It has been further urged that there has been non- application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order as the detenue was already admitted to bail in the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention but the said fact is not mentioned in the grounds of detention and that the representation submitted by the petitioner against the impugned detention order has not been considered as no result of consideration has been conveyed to him. 3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the impugned detention order is based on a reasonable predilection of future behaviour and the same has been passed after considering the past conduct of the detenue. It has been contended that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It has been further contended that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is also averred in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that HCP No. 242/2025 the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments, was on the following grounds: (i) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the detenue has already been admitted to bail in FIR Nos.61/2018 and 85/2018 registered with P/S Pantha Chowk, but this fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention. (ii) That the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic, which prevented the detenue from making an effective representation against his detention. 5) From a perusal of the material available on file, the ground regarding non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority appears to be forceful, inasmuch as the grounds of detention do not bear any reference to the fact that the petitioner had already been admitted to bail in both the FIRs mentioned therein terms of the orders passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner has placed on record copies of orders passed by the courts of learned Special Judge (Designated under NIA Act), Srinagar, and Additional Sessions Judge TADA/POTA, Srinagar, whereby he has been enlarged on bail in the aforesaid FIRs. However, this fact does not find mention in the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority. The non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. This shows that the detaining authority has not meticulously examined HCP No. 242/2025 the record while passing the impugned order of detention which renders the same unsustainable in law. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 137, Rekha v. State of T.N. (2011) 5 SCC 244, and Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2012) 2 SCC 72. 6) On perusal of the grounds of detention, the ground projected regarding vagueness of the averments made in the grounds of detention, appears to be forceful. In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of the terrorists of the banned terrorist organization, to whom the petitioner was allegedly providing logistic support. The particulars of the period when the detenue is alleged to have provided logistic support to the terrorists are also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds, being vague lacking in material particulars, the detenue could not have made an effective representation against his detention. Therefore, there has been violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detention order, as such, is illegal and unsustainable. In my aforesaid view, I am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Jahangirkhan Fazal Khan Pathan vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmadabad, (1989) 3 SCC 590, Abdul Razak Nane khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmadabad, AIR 1989 SC 2265, Mohd. Yousuf Rather vs. State of J&K & Ors, 1979 4 HCP No. 242/2025 SCC 370 and Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. The Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Ors. 1989 (1) Crimes 176 (SC). 7) Apart from the above, it has been mentioned in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was bound down in terms of Section 126/170 of BNSS on 23.04.2025, and he was released on furnishing personal bonds. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have either taken any steps to proceed against the petitioner for having committed breach of the bond executed by him in the aforesaid proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order of detention. The respondents should have taken requisite steps for proceeding against the petitioner for violation of the bond executed by him instead of placing him in custody under the law of preventive detention, which is not the appropriate remedy. 8) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 9) The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 15.05.2026 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No