Moot Points;
25. If the reference to FIR No. 127 of 2022 in the context of petitioner is taken out, then literally what is left in the dossier as well as the grounds of detention is more a chalk rather than cheese and the grounds of detention, thus, self-certify themselves to be vague to the extent that there is no whisper of fact as to whether the petitioner has ever breached the terms and conditions of the bonds dated 08.02.2025 and 25.04.2025 so as to self-invite preventive detention custody to be ordered by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vakil Singh vs. State of J & K and Anr., 1974 AIR (SC) 2337 has examined as to what is meant by “Grounds” in the context of grounds of detention in support of a preventive detention law. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has examined and extrapolated the expression “grounds” to be both conclusions of facts with a factual constituent therein and the conclusions drawn therefrom.
27. When this Court examines the purported grounds of detention in the present case related to preventive detention of the petitioner, then the expression “grounds of detention” has nothing stated factually in its entire length and breadth except fictitious references on the basis whereof to deprive a person of his fundamental right to personal liberty cannot be allowed to sustain and, therefore, the preventive detention of the petitioner in the present case is also found to be seriously flawed being based on vague grounds in every sense of the term.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
HCP No. 326/2025
Pronounced on: 27.08.2026
Altaf Ahmad Dar @ Altaf Sahil …Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin S. Qadri, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. Perused the writ pleadings and the documents annexed therewith.
Also examined the detention record produced from the end of the respondents relating
to the petitioner’s detention.
3. From the confines of the District Jail, Poonch, the
petitioner-Altaf Ahmad Dar alias Altaf Sahil, acting through his wife Razia
Sultan, came to petition this court with present writ petition filed on
11.11.2025 for the sake of seeking restoration of his personal liberty and
consequent release from the preventive detention custody being suffered by him
under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 by an order passed by the respondent
No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar.
4. The purported factual backdrop which led to the petitioner being
placed in preventive detention custody is that the Senior Superintendent of
Police, (SSP), Srinagar purportedly documented the alleged activities of the
petitioner reckoned to be prejudicial to the security of the State and, thus,
being put in a dossier conveyed the same vide his letter No. LGL/ Det/ PSA/
2025/ 27922-25 dated 01.09.2025 to the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Srinagar thereby urging the exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent
No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 to
order the preventive detention of the petitioner.
5. The dossier with reference to the petitioner profiled and
projected the petitioner being a Degree Holder in Music and Fine Arts but
deeply influenced by radical ideology and then coming in contact with active
terrorists and OGW(s) of LeT/TRF drawing motivation from them to work for and
provide logistic support, food, shelter etc. to the terrorists.
6. The petitioner is said to have been a very staunch OGW of Barthana
Qamarwari area. The petitioner’s transformation into a radical, notorious terror
associate and sympathizer is said to have been on account of his interaction
with one Mehraj-ud-Din alias Jan Peer resident of Pandach Srinagar known as an
Islamic Preacher and former terrorist, who used to be delivering inflammatory
and venomous lectures on Islam and Jihad.
7. In June 2022, the Police Cargo, Srinagar and Paramilitary Forces
are said to have carried out a joint operation at Barthana Qamarwari in which
the petitioner along with his associates are said to have been apprehended and
subjected to interrogation to vomit out alleged confession that since November
2021 TRF terrorists including Basit Ahmad Dar alias Kamran, Umais Wani alias
Khubaib, Lateef Ahmad Dar, Aqib Shergojri, Saqib and Zubair had visited his
home for staying there for extended period. From the search of the petitioner’s
house and his mobile phone, photographs are alleged to have been drawn out
showing terrorist preparing food and taking shelter at his residence.
8. The petitioner’s complicity in criminal case of FIR No. 127 of
2022 registered by the Police Station, Parimpora was highlighted in the
dossier. In addition, the petitioner was said to have been subjected to security
for good behavior proceedings on 08.02.2025, 25.04.2025 besides documenting his
activities in a Patrol Book Report on 27.07.2025.
9. The aforesaid dossier convinced the respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, Srinagar, to came forward with grounds of detention formulated to
draw a subjective satisfaction therefrom that reported state of activities of
the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of the State warranting his
preventive detention custody and thus, came to pass detention order No.
DMS/PSA/41/2025 dated 30.09.2025 thereby directing arrest of the petitioner and
his confinement in District Jail, Poonch for a period to be specified by the Government.
10. The execution of the detention warrant came to be carried out when
petitioner was detained on 04.10.2025 whereupon he was handed over with all the
requisite documents and is said to have been explained the order of detention,
grounds of detention, notice of detention and other material accompanying the
compilation so as to make him understand the basis of his detention custody
before being handed over to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Poonch.
11. By virtue of an order No. Home/PB-V/1835 of 2025 dated 08.10.2025,
the preventive detention order so passed by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Srinagar came to be approved and submitted for the Advisory Board’s examination
and opinion.
12. The Advisory Board at its end submitted an Opinion Report dated
03.11.2025 by holding that there were sufficient grounds for subjecting the petitioner
to suffer preventive detention custody. The Advisory Board is said to have also
extended its consideration to the representation dated 09.10.2025 made in the
name and on behalf of the petitioner by his family members and found the same
to be without any merit.
13. Based upon said Advisory Board’s Opinion in affirmation of
preventive detention of the petitioner, confirmation came to be accorded by the
Government of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir acting through Home
Department by issuance of Government Order No. Home/PB-V/2115 of 2025 dated 14.11.2025
and ordering the first phase of the petitioner’s preventive detention for a
period of six months from 04.10.2025 till 03.04.2026 with place of confinement
being District Jail, Poonch.
14. The petitioner’s detention is said to have been further extended
and is meant to last for a full period of two years, to expire on 03.09.2027.
15. The petitioner in his writ petition has come forth assailing his
preventive detention by stating that the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Srinagar is not competent to order preventive detention by reference to the
security of the State scenario because of amendment in the Jammu and Kashmir
Public Safety Act, 1978 effected in the year 2022.
16. In this regard, it is stated by the petitioner that expression
“State of Jammu and Kashmir” has been replaced by expression “Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir” and, therefore, in the impugned detention order, the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar has fallen into error of
judgement by holding that alleged repeated activities of the petitioner are prejudicial
to the security of the State whereas there is no State of Jammu and Kashmir as
a political entity by reference to which its security can be said to be a ground
for subjecting a person to preventive detention and instead it is only by
reference to security of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir that exercise of jurisdiction
under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 under section (8) sub section
(1)(a)(i) can be exercised both by the Government as well as by the Officers
named in sub section (2) of section (8).
17. The petitioner has further assailed that the respondent
No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar has not disclosed the material on the basis
whereof he came to arrive at a conclusion about the alleged prejudicial state
of activities of the petitioner. It is pleaded that the petitioner was never
ever provided with the beat book reports mentioned in the grounds of detention.
18. The petitioner has further averred that the entire material
related to FIR No. 127 of 2022 registered by Police Station, Parimpora and the
Final Investigation Report related therewith was never ever provided to the
petitioner for enabling him to make an effective representation against his
preventive detention being correlated with petitioner’s alleged involvement in
criminal case booked under FIR No. 127 of 2022.
19. The only ground worth mentioning urged in the writ petition is
that a detention cannot be on vague grounds in the context of having no date,
no territorial location, no month and no year about the alleged indulgences
referred and related to the petitioner being prejudicial activity to the
security of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
20. In response to the writ petition, the respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, Srinagar in his counter affidavit, has stated that on 12.06.2022,
the petitioner along with his associates were apprehended by a joint operation
team during a search operation launched by Police Cargo, Srinagar and
Paramilitary Forces, Barthana and upon detention, the petitioner is said to have
made an admission that since November 2021, terrorists had been staying in his
house for a long time. The registration of FIR No. 127 of 2022 by the Police
Station, Parimpora for alleged commission of offences under section 153-A,
153-B and 505 of Indian Penal Code read with section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967 had taken place, leading to the arrest of the petitioner.
21. The counter affidavit filed on 09.02.2026 does not divulge
anything further with respect to FIR No. 127 of 2022 meaning thereby the
respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Srinagar was as clueless as a layman
could be in the context of the case registered under FIR No. 127 of 2022 by
Police Station, Parimpora.
22. Both the grounds of detention as well as the counter affidavit
from the end of respondent No.2- District Magistrate, Srinagar are found to be tightlipped
with respect to fact as to whether the petitioner came to be charge sheeted for
his alleged involvement in FIR No. 127 of 2022 and, if so, the status of the
criminal case in a court of law.
23. When this Court examines the preventive detention of the
petitioner by reference to the challenge that it is resting purely on vague
grounds, this Court cannot escape from agreeing with said challenge. If no less
a person than the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar in his
dossier is to be found blank with respect to the final outcome of FIR No. 127
of 2022, be it in the form of presentation of a charge sheet or a closure
report, then the quality of information at the disposal of Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar to frame a dossier for seeking
preventive detention of the petitioner became seriously suspect from the very
first stroke of writing of the dossier by none other than Senior Superintendent
of Police (SSP), Srinagar.
24. The respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar is in no better
position than the blank position of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar
in the manner that it did not tax the respondent No.2-Distirct Magistrate,
Srinagar to seek input from the end of Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar
about the final outcome of FIR No. 127 of 2022 which otherwise was being
highlighted in the entire dossier to portray the petitioner as Over Ground Worker.
25. If the reference to FIR No. 127 of 2022 in the context of
petitioner is taken out, then literally what is left in the dossier as well as
the grounds of detention is more a chalk rather than cheese and the grounds of detention,
thus, self-certify themselves to be vague to the extent that there is no
whisper of fact as to whether the petitioner has ever breached the terms and
conditions of the bonds dated 08.02.2025 and 25.04.2025 so as to self-invite
preventive detention custody to be ordered by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Srinagar.
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vakil
Singh vs. State of J & K and Anr., 1974 AIR (SC) 2337 has examined
as to what is meant by “Grounds” in the context of grounds of detention in support
of a preventive detention law. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India has examined and extrapolated the expression “grounds” to be both conclusions
of facts with a factual constituent therein and the conclusions drawn
therefrom.
27. When this Court examines the purported grounds of detention in the
present case related to preventive detention of the petitioner, then the expression
“grounds of detention” has nothing stated factually in its entire length and
breadth except fictitious references on the basis whereof to deprive a person
of his fundamental right to personal liberty cannot be allowed to sustain and,
therefore, the preventive detention of the petitioner in the present case is
also found to be seriously flawed being based on vague grounds in every sense
of the term.
28. The Detention Order DMS/PSA/41/2025 dated 30.09.2025 read with
approval/ confirmation/ extension order(s) passed by respondent No.1 are hereby
held to be illegal and, thus, quashed.
29. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty
by his release from the concerned Jail wherever he is kept detained for which
purpose the Superintendent of the concerned Jail to release the petitioner
forthwith.
30. Disposed of.
(RAHUL
BHARTI) JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 27.08.2026