ABDUL HAMEED PARRAY vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 09.04.2026
Pronounced on:24.04.2026
Uploaded on: 24.04.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
HCP No.120/2025
ABDUL HAMEED PARRAY
...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)
Through:
-
Mr. Arshid Andrabi, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
Through:
-
Mr.
Jahingeer Dar, GA.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner, through the medium of the petition at
hand, has impugned order of bearing No.01/DMB/PSA of
2025 dated 01.05.2025, issued by District Magistrate,
Bandipora, placing the detenue, namely, Ab. Hameed
Parray under preventive detention in order to prevent him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order.
2) In the petition, it has been contended that previously
the petitioner was placed under preventive detention
pursuant to detention order No.07/DMB/PSA of 2018
dated 18.07.2018 which was quashed by this Court in HCP

P a g e | 2

No.199/2018 and the same was allowed by virtue of
judgment dated 12.12.2018. It has been contended that
without there being any fresh activities attributable to the
petitioner, the impugned order has been issued on the
identical grounds. It has also been contended that the
alleged fresh activities attributed to the detenue are vague
lacking in material particulars, on the basis of which the
petitioner could not make an effective representation
against the impugned order of detention.
3)
The respondents have contested the petition by filing
their reply affidavit, wherein it has been contended that the
activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. It has been contended that the
petitioner is involved in multiple FIRs and he has been at
the forefront of implementing the agenda of subversive and
anti-national organizations. It has been contended that
after the release of petitioner from preventive detention, he
was again found involved in the activities which are
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order resulting in
issuance of impugned detention order; that whole of the
material relied upon by the detaining authority has been
furnished to the detenue and contents of the same were
read over and explained to him; that the detenue was
informed that he can make a representation to the

P a g e | 3

government as well as to the detaining authority against his
detention. It is further contended in the reply affidavit that
all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees
have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining
authority and that the impugned order has been issued
validly and legally. The respondents have produced the
detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the
counter affidavit.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the cases including the detention record.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking
quashment of the impugned order, projected various
grounds but his main thrust during the course of
arguments was on the ground that the grounds of detention
are vague and cryptic, which prevented him from making
an effective representation against his detention.
6)
Upon perusal of the detention record produced by
learned counsel for the respondents, the ground projected
regarding vagueness of the averments made in the grounds
of detention, appears to be forceful. In the grounds of
detention, it is mentioned that after the release of the
petitioner from preventive detention upon quashment of his
preventive detention order in terms of order dated

P a g e | 4

18.07.2018 passed by this Court, he again developed
contact with various terrorist/secessionist organizations to
carry out the activities of secessionism and terrorism and
that he was in touch with Lashkar-e-Toiba handlers. It is
also mentioned in the grounds of detention that the
petitioner is actively involved in aiding and abetting
unlawful activities, providing logistic support to LeT
terrorists thereby posing a serious threat to public order.
7) In the grounds of detention, there is no mention of the
particulars of the places and the identity of the terrorist
organization, handlers and terrorists of the banned terrorist
organization LeT, with whom the petitioner was in touch
and to whom he was allegedly providing logistic support.
The particulars of the period when the detenue is alleged to
have contacted these handlers and provided logistic
support to the terrorists are also not mentioned in the
grounds of detention. Thus, the grounds are vague and
lacking in material particulars. On the basis of such ground
the detenue could not have made an effective
representation against his detention. Therefore, there has
been violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The detention order, as
such, is illegal and unsustainable. In my aforesaid view, I
am fortified by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the

P a g e | 5

case of Jahangirkhan Fazal Khan Pathan vs. Police
Commissioner, Ahmadabad, (1989) 3 SCC 590, Abdul
Razak Nane khan Pathan v. Police Commissioner,
Ahmadabad, AIR 1989 SC 2265, Mohd. Yousuf Rather
vs. State of J&K & Ors, 1979 4 SCC 370 and Piyush
Kantilal Mehta vs. The Commissioner of Police,
Ahmedabad City and Ors. 1989 (1) Crimes 176 (SC).
8) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and
the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is
directed to be released from the preventive custody
forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any
other case.
9) The detention record be returned to the learned
counsel for the respondents.

(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
24.04.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No