Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1112 J&K/2
Judgement Date : 22 May, 2025
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.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!