SHAKOOR AHMED TH. HIS BROTHER MANZOOR AHMED vs UT OF J AND K TH. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME, JAMMU AND OTHERS

Regular List
Serial No. 04

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU



Date of pronouncement: 23.10.2026
Uploaded on: 27.10.2026

HCP No. 63/2026

Shakoor Ahmed, aged 39 years
S/o Gulam Ahmed Dar
R/o Village Rajdhani, Tehsil Thanamandi,
District Rajouri (J&K).
Present lodged in District Jail, Poonch
Through his brother Manzoor Ahmed
S/o Gulam Ahmed Dar.
…..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate.

Vs


1. The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir,
through Principal Secretary (Home),
Civil Secretariat, Jammu.

2. The District Magistrate, Rajouri.

3. The Superintendent, District Jail, Poonch.

.….Respondents
Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT (ORAL)



01. Heard Mr. Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, learned Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, learned Advocate and also

Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG.
HCP No. 63/2026 Page No. 1

02. Perused the writ pleadings and documents therewith and
also the counter affidavit filed from the end of the respondents along

with documents therewith.
03. The petitioner-Shakoor Ahmed, acting through his
brother Manzoor Ahmed, has come forward with the present writ
petition filed on 27.07.2026 invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court
under article 226 of the Constitution of India thereby seeking
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of person of the
petitioner from preventive detention custody slapped upon him by
the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri acting under the

Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
04. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Rajouri, by
virtue of a communication No. PA/PSA/2026/9369-72/C dated
11.06.2026 , had come to submit a dossier to the respondent No. 2-
District Magistrate, Rajouri thereby projecting the alleged state of
activities of the petitioner reckoned by the District Police to be
prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order warranting the
preventive detention custody of the petitioner so as to ensure
maintenance of Public Order in the District in particular and the

adjoining areas in general.
05. It took the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri
almost one month to spare time for consideration of the dossier so

submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Rajouri.
HCP No. 63/2026 Page No. 2

06. By purported formulation of grounds of detention, the
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri came to a subjective
satisfaction that reported state of alleged activities of the petitioner,
including his criminal antecedents relatable to FIR No. 101/2020
under section 188 IPC read with section 11 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act of Police Station, Thanamandi, FIR No.
165/2022 under section 188 IPC of the Police Station, Rajouri
and FIR No. 75/2025 under section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS), 2023 read with section 11 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, Police Station, Thanamandi, sufficed the
petitioner to be reckoned as a person acting in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of Public Order and liable to suffer loss of his

fundamental right to personal liberty.
07. Consequently, by virtue of detention order No.
DMR/PSA/05 of 2026 dated 11.07.2026 , the petitioner came to be

ordered to be detained and kept in District Jail, Poonch.
08. On the basis of the said detention order, the petitioner
came to be taken into preventive detention custody on 13.07.2026
when SI-Zakir Hussain of District Police Line (DPL), Rajouri had
come to arrest the petitioner and handed over his person to the
Superintendent Jail, Rajouri wherefrom the petitioner came to

petition this Court with the present writ petition.
HCP No. 63/2026 Page No. 3

09. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a
fundamental flaw in the matter of procedural compliances relatable
to ordering and effecting the preventive detention custody of the
petitioner which fundamental flaw is that the respondent No. 2-
District Magistrate, Rajouri in his notice No. DMR/JC/2026-
27/669-71 dated 11.07.2026 addressed to the petitioner omitted
to apprise the petitioner about his constitutional right of making a
representation against his detention being so ordered by the
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri to the detention order
making authority which being the respondent No. 2-District

Magistrate, Rajouri.
10. In fact, notice No. DMR/JC/2026-27/669-71 dated
11.07.2026 of the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri is
meaning to apprise the petitioner of his right to make a
representation only to the Government and none else. Therefore,

there is an express omission being found in the very notice itself.
11. The omission is further compounded by the fact from the
receipt procured from the petitioner as a detenue by SI-Zakir
Hussain in connection with execution of the detention warrant and
delivering to the petitioner 82 leaves compilation comprising of
detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice of detention order,
dossier and other relevant record and also explaining to the
petitioner the contents of 82 leaves compilation which of course
HCP No. 63/2026 Page No. 4

including the notice of detention No. DMR/JC/2026-27/669-71
dated 11.07.2026 issued by the respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate, Rajouri to the petitioner. The petitioner was, thus,
simply informed and apprised of his right to make a representation
against his detention to the Government and not to the detention

order making authority as well.
12. The petitioner’s detention came to be confirmed by virtue
of a Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/955 of 2026 dated 06.08.2026
pursuant to the Advisory Board’s opinion dated 29.07.2026
wherein the petitioner’s preventive detention custody was held to be

justified.
13. This Court is taken by serious concern that how could
Advisory Board under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act,
1978 omit such a patent omission obtaining on record with respect
to the preventive detention custody of the petitioner. The Advisory
Board in its opinion report has stated that there is no
representation from the petitioner’s end against his preventive
detention which is correct to the extent of Government but not
applicable in the context of the petitioner’s right to make
representation to the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Rajouri

with respect to which right the petitioner was never ever notified.
14. This Court is not entitled to question the petitioner as to
what prejudice has he suffered by deprivation of his right to be
HCP No. 63/2026 Page No. 5

informed of making a representation against his detention to the
detention order making authority. When it is a matter of loss of
fundamental right to personal liberty, doctrine of prejudice is not
meant to be confronted to a person suffering the loss of
fundamental right to personal liberty by being in confinement and
custody without having suffered any conviction for commission of

offence/s by a criminal court of law.
15. The petitioner’s detention is under preventive measures
envisaged under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
and, therefore, preventive detention jurisdiction is purely procedure
driven admitting of no scope for any lapse of meticulous compliance
on the part not only of the sponsoring authority seeking preventive
detention of a prospective detenue but also on the part of the
detention order making authority as well as detention order

approving and confirmation authority which is the State.
16. In fact, even the role of the Advisory Board is supposed to
be that of a vigilant authority to be a watchdog to scan the case/s
submitted for its opinion from the end of the Government. Advisory
Board is meant to ensure that all the procedural compliances
attending with the detention of a person under the Jammu and
Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 has suffered no miss at every
related aspect of the procedural compliance. Advisory Board is not
meant to be a mere Post-Office like authority of getting a case of a
HCP No. 63/2026 Page No. 6

preventive detention of a person on its liable and doling out a
favorable opinion report for enabling confirmation of the preventive
detention of a detenue. The purpose of Advisory Board is that of
filtration which this Court is sad to observe is being reckoned as a
free passage for the detention orders to arrive on the table of

detention order confirmation authority.

17. In the light of the aforesaid, preventive detention order
No. DMR/PSA/05 of 2026 dated 11.07.2026 read with
approval/confirmation/extension orders passed on the part of the
respondent No. 2–District Magistrate, Rajouri as well as the Govt.

of UT of Jammu & Kashmir are hereby quashed .
18. The Superintendent District Jail, Poonch is directed to

set the petitioner free by release from the Jail forthwith.


19. Disposed of.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
23.10.2026
Bunty

Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes / No
Bunty Kumar
2026.10.27 13:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
HCP No. 63/2026 Page No. 7