[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Basharat Ahmad Bazaz vs Ut Of Jammu And Kashmir on 5 February, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 29.01.2026
Pronounced on: 05.02.2026
Uploaded on: 10 .02.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
HCP No. 312/2024
Basharat Ahmad Bazaz, Aged 32 years
S/o Ghulam Hassan Bazaz
R/o Malik Angan, Fateh Kadal, Srinagar
Through his mother
Mst. Rafiqa Assad, Aged 61 years
..... Appellant (s)
Through: Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb,
Advocate
V/s
1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir,
Through Principal Secretary, Home Department,
J&K Government, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu
2. District Magistrate, Srinagar
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Srinagar
..... Respondent(s)
Through: None.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti, Judge.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner, Basharat Ahmad Bazaz, acting through his
mother Mst. Rafiqa Assad, has come to petition this Court
with present writ petition filed on 18.09.2024, thereby
assailing his preventive detention ordered vide impugned
Page |2
Order No. DMS/PSA/22/2024 dated 05.09.2024 passed by
the respondent No. 2- District Magistrate, Srinagar, thereby
subjecting the petitioner to suffer preventive detention under
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 for the sake of
preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner
prejudicial to maintenance of the security of the State.
2. A case for preventive detention of the petitioner was mooted
by the Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP) Srinagar, by
virtue of dossier submitted vide Letter No. LGL/Det-
PSA/2024/19451-54 dated 30.08.2024 notifying the alleged
state of activities of the petitioner on the basis whereof the
petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty was
reckoned by the District Police to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of the security of the State.
3. Acting upon said dossier, respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate, Srinagar formulated the grounds of detention,
thereby, purportedly drawing the subjective satisfaction that a
case has been made out for effecting the preventive detention
of the petitioner and, thus, ordering his preventive detention
to take place by confining him to the Central Jail Srinagar.
Page |3
4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has posed challenge to his
detention on the grounds set out in para 3 (i to xv).
5. The petitioner submits that grounds of detention bear no
nexus with the petitioner as the basis of the grounds of
detention is fabrication by the police to somehow justify the
consequent detention. In fact, the petitioner is meaning to say
that detention was aimed against someone else rather than
the petitioner and, thus, impugned order of detention is a case
of mistaken identity. The grounds of detention are alleged to
be vague and non-existent on the basis whereof no
satisfaction, much less the subjective satisfaction, could have
been drawn by the detention order making authority.
6. The grounds of detention are said to be lacking specificity.
The petitioner submits that once he was subjected to
preventive proceedings under section 126 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023, there was no
occasion for the respondent No. 2 to come up with the
drastic action of setting the petitioner to suffer preventive
detention under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
when petitioner had not breached any terms and conditions
Page |4
relatable to preventive proceedings against him so instituted
under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. It
is being asserted that driving motive in effecting the
preventive detention of the petitioner was relatable to the
forthcoming Assembly election at the relevant point of time
which came to take place and still petitioner is suffering
incarceration in terms of his preventive detention custody.
7. The petitioner comes up with heavy weight submission that
literally on the identical grounds he was first subjected to
preventive detention in the year 2018 by virtue of an order
No. DMS/PSA/37/2018 dated 16.11.2018 which was
quashed by this court in HCP No. 438/2018 by virtue of
judgment dated 30.05.2019 when it was held by this Court in
its said judgment dated 30.05.2019 that there was no specific
allegation relatable to petitioner to justify the ground of
detention and consequent preventive detention.
8. Said judgment dated 30.05.2019 was never assailed by the
District Magistrate, Srinagar and the petitioner at last had
earned his lost personal liberty.
Page |5
9. The grounds of detention this time supporting impugned
detention order are being asserted as replica of the dossier,
thereby reflecting upon a mechanical and run-of-the-mill
application of mind on the part of the respondent No. 2-
District Magistrate, Srinagar in acting on "dotted lines" as
served by the District Police Srinagar without any
independent aware application of mind on his part.
10. The petitioner also submits that his constitutional right to
representation has gone to suffer a dustbin disposal without
apprising the petitioner the fate of his said representation so
submitted by him.
11. In response to the writ petition, the respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate, Srinagar, in his counter affidavit submitted on 30-
12-2024, submits that the detention of the petitioner is fully
justifiable by reference to impugned order as the petitioner is
said to have come in contact with the active terrorist and
OGW's of TRF/LeT at an early age, thereby motivating him
to work with the outfit as an Over Ground Worker.
12. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner by reference to FIR
No. 67/2018 of the Police Station MR Gunj, FIR No.
Page |6
68/2018 of the Police Station MR Gunj, and FIR No.
22/2018 of the Police Station Nowhatta warrranting
preventive proceedings against petitioner have been
highlighted in the counter affidavit.
13. Detention warrant is said to have been executed with the
arrest of the petitioner taking place on 06-09-2024,
whereupon he was handed over to the Central Jail Srinagar,
where he is said to be lodged as per detention order.
14. All the procedural requirements relating to the execution of
the detention warrant are said to have been carried into
compliance and that is why vide Government Order No.
Home/PB-V/1967 dated 10.10.2024 whereby detention
period of the petitioner was settled for a period of six months
at the first place to continue to extend thereafter till full
course of detention period.
15. In the entire counter affidavit, the respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate, Srinagar has not referred to the fact as to when
and vide which Government Order, the detention order so
passed by him i.e, District Magistrate, Srinagar was first
approved by the Government, then to be followed by
Page |7
confirmation of the detention order. There is no reference in
the entire counter affidavit as to whether detention of the
petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board for examination
and its opinion as to whether detention of the petitioner was
justified or not.
16. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case that this Court is to examine the legality and
validity of the petitioner's preventive detenu.
17. In the original preventive detention Order No.
DMS/PSA/22/2024 dated 05.09.2024 passed by the
respondent No. 2- District Magistrate Srinagar, the detenu's
parentage is referred to be son of late Ghulam Rasool Bazaz,
resident of Malik Angan, Fateh Kadal, Srinagar followed
next day issued Corrigendum No. DMS/Jud/PSA/1051-
1055/2024dated 06.09.2024 to effect that instead of Late
Ghulam Rasool Bazaz name of father be read as Ghulam
Hassan Bazaz.
18. Given the fact that petitioner came to be detained on
06.09.2024 on the very next date of passing of detention
order when the arrest of the person named in the aforesaid
Page |8
detention order was supposed to be that of Basharat Ahmad
Bazaz @ Prince who was son of late Ghulam Rasool Bazaz,
then how the identity of the person to be detained was sorted
and established by Executing Officer in leading himself
instead directly to the petitioner, to be confirmed as being son
of late Ghulam Rasool Bazaz is a fact which exposes the
malice in law of the preventive detention set out against the
petitioner from the end of the respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate, Srinagar.
19. It is nowhere stated in the counter affidavit and for that
matter in the Corrigendum above referred whether incorrect
mention of parentage was in the dossier of SSP Srinagar or at
the end of the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Srinagar
and that is very serious omission which exposes application
of mind on the part of the sponsoring and as well as detention
order making authority in playing fast and loose with the
truth in matters of constitutionally sacrosanct matter.
20. This Court has no hesitation to observe that petitioner is right
in his submission that his preventive detention order was a
case of mistaken identity in the sense that when there was
Page |9
previous detention of the petitioner effected by virtue of
Order No. DMS/PSA/37/2018 dated 16.11.2018 passed by
none other than the District Magistrate Srinagar himself by
reference to him, the petitioner's parentage was referred to be
son of late Ghulam Hassan Bazaz whereas in the impugned
preventive detention order issued by same very District
Magistrate Srinagar, the reference of parentage of intended
detenue is that of late Ghulam Rasool Bazaz and thus it
could not have been a case of a typographical or inadvertent
error/oversight on the part of the respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate Srinagar and if it is so then surely the same reflects
the passing of the impugned detention order as sheer non-
application of the mind, in order to cover up which by virtue
of Corrigendum No. DMS/Jud/PSA/1051-1055/2024
dated 06.09.2024, the parentage was changed to be read as
"son of Ghulam Hassan Bazaz." It is nowhere mentioned
from the end of the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate,
Srinagar as to whether Corrigendum issuing exercise was suo
motu or was solicited SSP, Srinagar on account of error being
in dossier.
P a g e | 10
21. Counsel for the petitioner is right to submit that while the
Corrigendum was issued by the reference to impugned Order
No. DMS/PSA/22/2024 dated 5.09.2024, the
Communication No. DMS/PSA/Jud/1026-31 dated
05.09.2024 issued by District Magistrate Srinagar remained
as it is and that was to Basharat Ahmad Bazaz @ Prince son
of late Ghulam Rasool Bazaz which was never put to any
correction and so remained the grounds of detention being
addressed to detenu who is son of late Ghulam Rasool Bazaz.
22. The aforesaid goof-up on the part of respondent No. 2-
District Magistrate Srinagar is in itself a sufficient ground to
quash the impugned preventive detention order and
consequent preventive detention of the petitioner, and
therefore on the basis thereof, the same is being set aside.
23. Additionally, also, the impugned preventive detention of the
petitioner warrants to be set aside as the Representation
submitted by the petitioner, duly received in the office of
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Srinagar on
10.09.2024, has remained begging for consideration to which
the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Srinagar in his
P a g e | 11
counter-affidavit filed on 03.12.2024 is least bothered to
whisper any reply.
24. Right of representation is not an empty formality from the
point of view of a detenu whereas it may be reckoned to be
formality of botheration from the point of view of detention
order making authority. The detention order making
authority appears to be ridden with a preconceived mindset
that a detenu cannot make out or be heard to make out any
ground for revocation of his/her preventive detention by way
of his/her representation, and therefore, there is hardly any
need to have a look at the representation of a detenu except to
put it in the dustbin disposal and not to even bother to make
any averment in counter affidavit to be submitted before a
Constitutional Court where legality and validity of the
impugned detention is being examined, as is the present case.
25. In view of the aforesaid, preventive detention of the order is
held to be factually illegal, which renders impugned Order
No. DMS/PSA/22/2024 dated 05.09.2024 read with
confirmation Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1967 of
2024 dated 10.10.2024, illegal.
P a g e | 12
26. The petitioner is thus ordered to be restored to his personal
liberty, for which Superintendent of Central Jail, Srinagar to
act in abidance.
(Rahul Bharti)
Judge
SRINAGAR
05.02.2026
Aasif
Whether the judgment is reported Yes/No
Whether the judgment is speaking Yes/No
