MOHAMMAD ILLYAS SHEIKH TH.HIS FATHER GH,.HASSAN SHEIKH vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.PR.SECRETARY TO GOVT (HOME) AND ORS

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
……
LPA No.262/2025
In HCP No.295/2024

Reserved on: 08.04.2026
Pronounced on: 07.05.2026
Uploaded on: 07.05.2026

Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full


Mohammad Ilyas Sheikh Th. His Father Gh. Hassan Sheikh
…….Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. G. N. Shaheen, Advocate
with Mr. Asif Nabi, Advocate

Versus

Union Territory of J&K and others
……Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA

CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

PER OSWAL-J

1. The appellant came to be detained pursuant to order of detention
bearing No.16/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 27.07.2024, passed by District
Magistrate, Kulgam (respondent No.2) in exercise of powers under
Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as “ the Act ”).
2. The appellant challenged the said order of detention by way of HCP
No.295/2024, which, however, came to be dismissed by the learned

Page 1
LPA No.262/2025


Writ Court vide judgment dated 25.09.2025 (hereinafter referred to as
“the impugned judgment”).
3. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated
25.09.2025, the appellant has assailed the same on the following
grounds: -
(i) That the learned writ Court has failed to consider and
properly appreciate the grounds urged by the appellant in
the writ petition, rendering the impugned judgment
unsustainable in law.
(ii) That the learned writ Court has failed to properly appreciate
the contention of the appellant that the order of detention
has been passed by respondent No.2 without due
application of mind.
(iii) That the learned writ Court has failed to appreciate that the
allegations set out in the grounds of detention had no nexus
with the appellant and were fabricated by the police with
the sole object of illegally detaining the appellant, thereby
vitiating the impugned order of detention.
(iv) That it was specifically urged before the learned writ Court
that the appellant had been taken into custody and was
bound down under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for maintaining a good behaviour. The
alleged activity against appellant was of the year 2019 and
the order of detention has been passed in the year 2024
inasmuch as there is a delay of five years between the
alleged activity and the order of detention.
(v) That it was specifically submitted before the learned writ
Court that the appellant was not furnished with the relevant
material forming the basis of the subjective satisfaction
recorded by the detaining authority, as reflected in the order
of detention and the grounds of detention; however, the

Page 2
LPA No.262/2025


learned writ Court has failed to properly appreciate the said
contention, thereby vitiating the impugned judgment.
(vi) That the appellant was earlier detained in terms of order of
detention dated 19.04.2021, which was subsequently
quashed by learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of
judgment dated 03.11.2021 and yet again the appellant has
been detained on the same set of allegations but the learned
writ court has not properly considered the said contention.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant had been
detained vide Detention Order No.01/DMK/PSA/2021 dated
19.04.2021 passed by District Magistrate, Kulgam. The said detention
order was challenged in WP(Crl) No.80/2021 and the same was
quashed vide judgement dated 03.11.2021. It is further submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant that the order of detention dated
27.07.2024 has been passed on the same grounds which were made use
of by the detaining authority while passing the detention order in the
year 2021, as such, the detention order is not sustainable, particularly
when no fresh illegal activities have been attributed to the appellant.

5. Per contra , Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, learned Government Advocate, has
submitted that the order of detention was passed after due
consideration of the activities of the appellant, which were found to be
prejudicial to the security of the State. It is further submitted that all the
procedural as well as constitutional safeguards were strictly followed
and complied with at the time of issuance as well as execution of the
detention order. He has also contended that the learned Writ Court has
rightly appreciated and adjudicated the controversy involved; therefore,
this appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.

Page 3
LPA No.262/2025


6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
7. Firstly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant was detained pursuant to the order of detention dated
19.04.2021, passed by the District Magistrate, Kulgam, which was
subsequently quashed by the learned Writ Court vide judgement dated
03.11.2021 in WP(Crl) no.80/2021, but this fact was not brought to the
notice of the detaining authority by the sponsoring agency.
8. We have examined the dossier. Perusal of the dossier submitted by the
sponsoring agency to the detaining authority though demonstrates that
the appellant was detained under preventive detention during the year
2021 but it is nowhere mentioned in the dossier that the said detention
order was quashed by the learned Writ Court in WP(Crl) no.80/2021
and in the grounds of detention, the same fact has been reiterated by
the detaining authority. It was incumbent on the part of the sponsoring
agency to disclose the complete facts to the detaining authority so as to
enable the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction that it
was necessary to detain the appellant. Suppression of fact of quashing
of the earlier detention order by the learned Single Judge in the dossier,
is itself sufficient to vitiate the order of detention.
9. It was also vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the appellant
that in the grounds of detention there is no whisper that after the
appellant was released in the year 2021, he indulged in any illegal
activity prejudicial to the security of the State warranting detention of
the appellant.
10. After having examined the grounds of detention as well as dossier, we
find that no illegal activity has been attributed to the appellant except

Page 4
LPA No.262/2025


that he was bound down under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. If the appellant
was required to be detained under the Act, the detaining authority as
well as the sponsoring agency were required to specifically mention the
illegal activities of the appellant warranting his detention. On this count
as well the order of detention is not sustainable.
11. We have examined the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court
and we find that the pivotal issues noticed by us hereinabove have
escaped the consideration of the learned writ Court.
12. In light of the above, we are of the considered view that the judgment
impugned in this appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
accordingly, the same is set aside. Resultantly, the order of detention
bearing No. 16/DMK/PSA/2024 dated 27.07.2024, passed by the
District Magistrate, Kulgam(respondent No. 2) under Section 8 of the
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is quashed. The appellant
shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other
case.
13. The record shall be returned to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
14. Disposed of as above along with connected CM(s), if any.


(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
07.05.2026
Ajaz Ahmad, Secy

Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No

Page 5
KARAM CHAND
2026.05.07 13:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA No.262/2025