Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Zahoor Ahmad Dar vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 30 April, 2025
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No. 321/2024
Reserved On: 3rd of April, 2025.
Pronounced On: 30th of April, 2025.
Zahoor Ahmad Dar
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocate.
V/s
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through: –
Mr Jehangir Ahmad Dar, 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.
03. The petitioner-Zahoor Ahmad Dar, acting through his
father namely Ghulam Nab Dar, being in state of preventive
custody, came to petition this Court with the present writ petition
filed on 1st of October, 2024 thereby seeking a writ of habeas
corpus in order to retrieve his lost personal liberty curtailed by
virtue of detention order No. 19/DMB/PSA of 2024 dated 11 th of
HCP No. 321/2024Page 2 of 10
September, 2024 passed by the respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, Bandipora.
04. The case for seeking preventive detention of the
petitioner was sponsored by district law and enforcement authority
of Bandipora when the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Bandipora, vide his communication No. Lgl/PSA-52/2024/39381-
88 dated 5th of September, 2024, came to submit a dossier to the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Bandipora wherein the
petitioner’s alleged activities, drawn predominantly by reference
to FIRs mentioned therein, came to be highlighted to claim that in
order to prevent the petitioner from further indulging in activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order personal liberty of
the petitioner is warranted to be curtailed.
05. The respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Bandipora at
his end by applying his mind to the dossier came to formulate
grounds of detention wherein the petitioner’s involvement in the
FIRs came to be referred upfront.
06. In this regard, the following FIRs came to be
mentioned in the grounds of detention:
HCP No. 321/2024
Page 3 of 10
i. FIR No. 267/2005 under section 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act registered by Police Station Sumbal;ii. FIR No. 03/2012 under section 7/25 of the Indian Arms
Act registered by Police Station Hajin;
iii. FIR No. 231/2014 under section 13 of the Unlawful
Activities Act read with section 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act registered by Police Station, Bijbehara;iv. FIR No. 81/2015 under section 7/25 of the Indian Arms
Act registered by Police Station Rajbagh;v. FIR No. 208/2010 under sections 341/148/323 of the
Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) registered by Police Station
Sumbal;
vi. FIR No. 80/2011 under sections 341/336/427 of the
Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) registered by Police Station
Sumbal;
vii. FIR No. 14/2016 under sections 447/452/354/336/427
of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) registered by Police
Station Sumbal;
viii. FIR No. 122/2016 under sections 148/149/336/353/152
of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) registered by Police
Station Sumbal;
ix. FIR No. 127/2016 under sections 148/149/336/307 of
the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) registered by Police
Station Sumbal;
HCP No. 321/2024
Page 4 of 10
x. FIR No. 09/2022 under sections 348/323/354 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Police Station Sumbal; andxi. FIR No. 51/2022 under sections 148/151/336 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered by Police Station,
Sumbal.
07. On the basis of the purported involvement of the
petitioner in the aforementioned FIRs out of which criminal cases
came to be instituted, the petitioner was reckoned to be a
prolonged agitator, nuisance, recidivist, being associated with
every kind of anti-national activities including acting as an OGW,
stone pelter, bad character and history sheeter. The petitioner was
said to be affiliated with anti-national forces working against the
interests of the nation.
08. The petitioner’s previous preventive detention having
taken place on 11th of April, 2022 for a period of two years came
to be highlighted with respect to which he came to get out of
preventive detention custody on 10th of April, 2024 after serving
full two years preventive custody.
09. On the basis of the grounds of detention so formulated,
the respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Bandipora came to draw
subjective satisfaction now this time holding the petitioner’s
HCP No. 321/2024Page 5 of 10
activities to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and,
thus, passing the detention order No. 19/DMB/PSA of 2024 dated
11th of September, 2024 directing petitioner’s detention and
detainment in the Central Jail Kotbhalwal, Jammu.
10. The petitioner came to be taken into custody on 12 th of
September, 2024 and handed over to the Superintendent, Central
Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu from which date onwards the petitioner
is in preventive detention custody.
11. The institution of the present writ petition came to take
place on 1st of October, 2024 while the petitioner was in state of
custody.
12. The preventive detention order No. 19/DMB/PSA of
2024 dated 11th of September, 2024 passed by the respondent
No.2-District Magistrate, Bandipora came to be confirmed by the
Government of Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir vide
Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1976 of 2024 dated 11th of
October, 2024 after the Advisory Board came up with its opinion
report that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner
under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
HCP No. 321/2024Page 6 of 10
13. This order of confirmation, thus, meant that the
petitioner is bound for preventive detention for a full period of one
year out of which he has served more than seven months and is
now left with just around four months and a few days of
remainder of custody.
14. Against his preventive detention, the petitioner, acting
through his wife namely Rubeena, submitted a written
representation to the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Bandipora duly received against receipt No. 2534 dated 19th of
September, 2024.
15. The petitioner has come to assail his preventive
detention on the grounds as set out in paragraphs No. 3 (i) to (xvi)
of the writ petition.
16. A perusal of the two preventive detention orders earlier
one and present one with respect to the petitioner would reveal
that on the very same operative set of facts and circumstances, the
petitioner second time has been subjected to suffer preventive
detention on the pretext of maintenance of Public Order as against
the pretext of Security of State in the first detention order.
HCP No. 321/2024Page 7 of 10
17. The petitioner has assailed his preventive detention
being vitiated with illegality on the ground that his representation
duly received by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Bandipora has gone begging for consideration and response.
Paragraph No. 3 (xii) of the writ petition is addressed on this
aspect of the matter.
18. Counter affidavit to the writ petition came to be filed
on 26th of November, 2024 from the end of the respondent No.2-
District Magistrate, Bandipora.
19. In his counter affidavit, the respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, Bandipora is found short of facts and obviously on
account of deficiency of facts with respect to the grounds of
detention itself that within a period of five months from his
release on 10th of April, 2024, after having spent two years’
preventive detention custody, which further reported acts of
omission or commission came to be documented and reported
against the petitioner to render him now a case as prejudicial to
the maintenance of Public Order.
20. If there would have been facts so reported, then the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Bandipora would not have
HCP No. 321/2024
Page 8 of 10
fallen back upon the assistance and reference of FIRs and the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner on the basis of which the
petitioner had come to be first detained under the Jammu &
Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 on 11th of April, 2022 being then
prejudicial to the security of the State.
21. The petitioner is, thus, right in his submission that
without any factual basis and on the very same set of stale
grounds, the petitioner has been subjected to suffer second time
preventive detention by changing the pretext from security of
State to maintenance of Public Order. Read between the lines, the
petitioner is meaning to say that his first preventive detention
custody is actually being extended by an interlude of just four
months.
22. With respect to the consideration of the petitioner’s
representation, the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Bandipora has come forward with a crafty response that the result
and outcome of the consideration of petitioner’s representation
was conveyed back to the applicant without clarifying the fact as
to whether the applicant so referred is the wife of the petitioner or
the petitioner himself. The result was supposed to be passed onto
the petitioner and none else. There is also no specific reference of
HCP No. 321/2024
Page 9 of 10
the communication vide which the consideration of the
petitioner’s representation was said to have been communicated to
so called applicant.
23. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case is that the petitioner’s preventive
detention is, in fact, just an extension of his previous preventive
detention by mirage of words and pretext by the Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Bandipora complemented by the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Bandipora and, therefore, the
same is held to be misconceived and unwarranted.
24. The preventive detention custody of the petitioner is,
thus, held to be illegal and liable to be quashed.
25. Accordingly, preventive detention order No.
19/DMB/PSA of 2024 dated 11th of September, 2024 passed by
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Bandipora read with
confirmation/ approval orders with respect to the preventive
detention of the petitioner are hereby quashed. The petitioner is
directed to be restored to his personal liberty by his release from
the concerned Jail and to that effect Superintendent concerned Jail
to act in compliance of the directions hereby being issued with
HCP No. 321/2024
Page 10 of 10
respect to the release of the petitioner from preventive detention
custody.
26. Disposed of.
(Rahul Bharti)
Judge
SRINAGAR
30.04.2025
“TAHIR”
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No
Whether the judgement is speaking : Yes / No
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
[ad_1]
Source link