Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mohammad Yaqoob Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1112 J&K/2

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1112 J&K/2
Judgement Date : 22 May, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mohammad Yaqoob Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 22 May, 2025

Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR


                     HCP No. 204/2024

                                        Reserved On: 3rd of April, 2025.
                                     Pronounced On: 22nd of May, 2025.

Mohammad Yaqoob Bhat
                                                  ... Petitioner(s)
                        Through: -

              Mr Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate.
                            V/s
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.

                                                ... Respondent(s)

Through: -

Mr Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate. CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rahul Bharti, Judge.

(JUDGMENT)

01. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

02. Perused the pleadings of the writ petition

and the record therewith. Also perused the detention

record relating to the petitioner produced by the

learned counsel for the respondents.

03. The institution of this writ petition came to

take place on 28th of May, 2024 through the medium

of which the petitioner-Mohammad Yaqoob Bhat,

acting through his brother-Javeed Ahmad Bhat, has

come to seek a writ of habeas corpus under article

226 of the Constitution of India in order to secure his

personal liberty otherwise curtailed by virtue of

preventive detention slapped upon him under the

Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 and being

in confinement w.e.f. 1st of April, 2024.

04. The respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent

of Police (SSP), Baramulla vide communication No.

Lgl/PSA/2024/528-31 dated 4th of March, 2024 read

with letter No. Lgl/det/2024/595 dated 14th of March,

2024, submitted a dossier to the respondent No.2-

District Magistrate, Baramulla on the basis of which

the preventive detention of the petitioner was solicited

for the purported purpose of preventing him from

indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the

Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

05. In the dossier, the respondent No.3-Senior

Superintendent of Police (SSP), Baramulla came to

mention that the petitioner is a 12th class drop-out

who with the passage of time got involved with

inimical elements to motivate him to work with the

cadres of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) outfit around

Palhallan area. The petitioner is said to have been

readily motivated and started working with LeT/ TRF

cadres by indulging in activities with a fair degree of

success for a long period and evaded being noticed.

The petitioner is alleged to have followed his brother-

Ashiq Hussain Bhat's footsteps in joining the terrorist

ranks and establishing a network in Pattan, getting

involved and booked in criminal case under FIR No.

18/2019 for the commission of offence under section

7/25 of the Arms Act registered with Police Station,

Pattan in which case he is alleged to have been

arrested with two hand grenades recovered from his

possession.

06. The petitioner is referred to be working as an

Over Ground Worker (OGW) of active militant Hilal

Ahmad of LeT and TRF outfit, who got killed later on,

and of PoK based militant Usman. The petitioner is

alleged to be involved in transportation of militants

and their associates from one place to another along

with arms and ammunition and motivating the youth

to join militant ranks. The petitioner is referred to be

having a history of threatening the PRIs/non-local

laborers at the behest of LeT/ TRF outfit aiming to kill

them in order to create panic in the society and

disturb peace in the area. The dossier further

mentions about the petitioner's earlier preventive

detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety

Act, 1978 by virtue of an order No.

43/DMB/PSA/2022 dated 20th of April, 2022 under

which he came to be detained in the Central Jail Kot

Bhalwal, Jammu but the said detention of the

petitioner later getting quashed in terms of a

judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and

Ladakh said to be on technical grounds. Even in his

said detainment, the petitioner is alleged to have

propagated the secessionist ideology motivating the

inmates of Jail to rise against the Government of

India. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved

in various criminal cases of District Baramulla being

arrested and booked under the relevant provisions of

law from time to time but always continuing with his

criminal tendencies and activities thereby becoming a

pain in the neck of the law enforcement agency and

potential threat to the security of the State.

07. In the supplementary dossier submitted vide

No. Lgl/det/2024/595 dated 14th of March, 2024, the

respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police

(SSP), Baramulla came to mention that the

petitioner's earlier preventive detention was quashed

by a judgment dated 24th of July, 2023 of the High

Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh resulting in

his release but later on the petitioner being booked

under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (Cr. P. C.) but getting released.

08. Acting upon the said dossier, the respondent

No.2-District Magistrate, Baramulla came to formulate

grounds of detention borrowing the version of the

dossier and branding it as grounds of detention to

provide subjective satisfaction to the respondent No.2-

District Magistrate, Baramulla to hold that the

petitioner's personal liberty deserved to be curtailed

second time under the Jammu & Kashmir Public

Safety Act, 1978 in order to prevent him from

indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the

Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

09. Vide an order No. 09/DMB/PSA/2024 dated

29th of March, 2024, the respondent No.2-District

Magistrate, Baramulla came to order the preventive

detention of the petitioner and his consequent

detainment in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.

10. Pursuant to the said detention order No.

09/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 29th of March, 2024, the

petitioner came to be arrested and detained on 1st of

April, 2024 when ASI Javed Ahmad, No. PID EXK-

901956 of Police Station, Baramulla carried out the

execution of the detention warrant against the

petitioner and handed him over to the

Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.

11. At the time of his detention, the petitioner is

said to have been handed over a 13-leaves compilation

comprising of detention order (one leaf), notice of

detention (one leaf), grounds of detention (two leaves),

dossier of detention (five leaves), copies of FIRs,

statements of witnesses and other relevant documents

(four leaves). The petitioner is stated to have been

explained the order of detention and the grounds of

detention.

12. The preventive detention order No.

09/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 29th of March, 2024 with

respect to the petitioner came to be approved by the

Home Department, Government of Union Territory of

Jammu & Kashmir vide Government Order No.

Home/PB-V/662 of 2024 dated 8th of April, 2024

awaiting the opinion of the Advisory Board with

respect to the preventive detention of the petitioner.

13. In the meantime, the petitioner, acting

through his brother- Javeed Ahmad Bhat, came to

address a written representation dated 9th of April,

2024 to the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,

Baramulla thereby seeking recall/ revocation of his

preventive detention.

14. In his said written representation, the

petitioner came to be referred as a handicapped

person with FAI i.e., Femoroacetabular Impingement

with crippled left rib with permanent disability of

45%.

15. In his written representation, the petitioner

came to mention that he was detained in the year

2019 under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act,

1978 in terms of order No. 130/DMB/PSA/2019

dated 21st of February, 2019 which order was revoked

by the Government on 31st of January, 2020 resulting

in his release.

16. The petitioner further came to mention in his

representation that in connection with his arrest in

FIR No. 18/2019, he came to be granted bail by the

Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, (Civil

Judge Senior Division), Pattan on 19th of February,

2020 which bail was never questioned.

17. The petitioner further came to refer in his

written representation that second time he came to be

detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety

Act, 1978 in terms of detention order No.

43/DMB/PSA/2022 dated 9th of April, 2022 on the

same grounds as were used in his first preventive

detention order, and the second time detention order

getting quashed in terms of WP (Crl) No. 526/2022

resulting in judgment dated 24th of July, 2023.

18. The petitioner, in his written representation,

has further mentioned that with respect to the

proceedings under sections 107/151 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.), he came to furnish a

bond and was restored to his liberty on 15th of

December, 2023 by the Executive Magistrate, 1st

Class, Pattan and the said bond has never been

breached by him but despite that he came to be

detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety

Act, 1978 without any basis.

19. The Advisory Board, vide its opinion on file

No. Home/PB-V/143/2024 dated 18th of April, 2024,

came to render its opinion holding the preventive

detention of the petitioner to be on justifiable basis. In

its report, the Advisory Board came to make a specific

reference that the petitioner has made no

representation against his preventive detention as no

such representation was found lying on the material

placed before the Advisory Board.

20. The Advisory Board's opinion dated 18th of

April, 2024, thus, facilitated confirmation of the

petitioner's detention in terms of Government Order

No. Home/PB-V/800 of 2024 dated 23rd of April, 2024

directing the petitioner's period of detention at first

instance to be for a period of six months w.e.f. 1st of

April, 2024 to 30th of September, 2024.

21. Immediately following issuance of

Government Order No. Home/PB-V/800 of 2024

dated 23rd of April, 2024, the Home Department,

Government of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir,

acting through its Deputy Secretary, came to address

a communication No. Home/PB-V/143/2024

(7448752) dated 30th of April, 2024 to the Special

Director General of Police, CID, Jammu & Kashmir

thereby soliciting comments on the written

representation of the petitioner, thus, confirming the

fact that the petitioner's representation dated 9th of

April, 2024 had landed in the hands of not only the

respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Baramulla but

also that of respondent No.1-Home Department,

Government of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

and still the said representation was withheld from

being forwarded to the Advisory Board for which

reason in its opinion report the Advisory Board came

to mention specifically that no representation was

found along with the material submitted relating to

the preventive detention of the petitioner.

22. The respondent No.2-District Magistrate,

Baramulla, at his end, vide his communication No.

DMB/ARA/1254-PSA/4034 dated 9th of May, 2024

addressed to the Financial Commissioner (ACS),

Home Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir

came to forward the representation of the petitioner

made through his brother-Javeed Ahmad Bhat

thereby confirming the fact that the petitioner's

representation dated 9th of April, 2024 was very much

in the hands of the respondent No.2-District

Magistrate, Baramulla but still the same was kept

withheld from being forwarded to the Advisory Board.

23. With respect to the petitioner's said

representation, the Home Department, Government of

Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir came to

recommend to reject the same and, consequently, in

terms of letter No. Home/PB-V/143/2024/7448752

dated 7th of August, 2024, the Home Department,

Government of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

came to apprise the respondent No.2-District

Magistrate, Baramulla about the fact that the

petitioner's representation was found to be without

any merit at the said stage of consideration.

24. Upon expiry of petitioner's first installment of

six months' detention against two years' maximum

detention period, the Home Department, Government

of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir came to pass

Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1855 of 2024

dated 25th of September, 2024 thereby extending the

petitioner's preventive detention period from 1st of

October, 2024 to 31st of March, 2025.

25. In response to the present writ petition, the

respondents came to submit the counter affidavit by

way of ritual like reply submitted on 24th of October,

2024.

26. It is in the aforesaid facts and circumstances

that the adjudication of the present writ petition is

coming to take place.

27. The preventive detention of the petitioner is

vitiated with singular flaw which is not of technical

nature but of substantive nature for which the

petitioner is not to be meant to suffer loss of personal

liberty any more.

28. The said singular flaw is that when the

written representation dated 9th of April, 2024 against

his preventive detention came to be made on behalf of

the petitioner thereby seeking revocation of his

preventive detention order slapped against him and

which written representation had duly landed in the

hands of not only the respondent No.2-District

Magistrate, Baramulla but also on the desk of the

respondent No.1-Home Department, Government of

Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, then why said

written representation was kept withheld from being

forwarded to the Advisory Board has bothered none of

the respondents to reply in the counter affidavit, more

particularly when the petitioner in his writ petition, at

para No. 3(c) has come forward with a specific

averment that his written representation was left

unattended and unconsidered even by the Advisory

Board.

29. A bare perusal of the written representation

so made by the petitioner through his brother would

show that the petitioner came forward with mention of

facts and circumstances which were least referred to

in the dossier against him and that meant that the

dossier was framed on edited version of facts for

reasons best known to the respondent No. 3-Senior

Superintendent of Police (SSP), Baramulla and, thus,

the flaw attending the preventive detention of the

petitioner has also been contributed to by the

respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police

30. Even the respondent No. 2-District

Magistrate, Baramulla did not act fairly at his end as

the petitioner came to be provided five (05) leaves of

dossier but was deprived of the supplementary dossier

submitted by respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent

of Police (SSP), Baramulla vide his communication No.

Lgl/det/2024/595 dated 14th of March, 2024. Had

this supplementary dossier been supplied to the

petitioner, then the number of leaves of the dossier

would have been seven (07) and not five (05).

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also

this Court have repeatedly emphasized the fact that

there cannot be any compromise with deviation from

the procedure in connection with preventive detention

jurisdiction being exercised aiming to deprive a person

of his personal liberty. The preventive detention of the

petitioner in the present case is, thus, seriously

vitiated and is held to be illegal.

32. Resultantly, the preventive detention order

No. 09/DMB/PSA/2024 dated 29th of March, 2024

passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate,

Baramulla read with approval/confirmation/

extension order(s) passed by the Home Department,

Government of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

with respect to the petitioner are hereby set aside.

33. The petitioner is directed to be restored,

without loss of any further time, to his personal

liberty by his immediate release from the concerned

Jail and to that effect the Superintendent of the

concerned Jail detaining the petitioner to act in

compliance of the directions hereby being issued with

respect to the release of the petitioner from preventive

detention custody.

34. Disposed of.

35. The detention record is in photostat form, as

such, retained.

(Rahul Bharti) Judge SRINAGAR May 22nd, 2025 "TAHIR"

i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes/ No.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter