AQIB AHMAD REGU TH. HIS FATHER vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND ORS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


Pronounced on : 29.06.2026

HCP No.160/2025


Aqib Ahmad Regu
…..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mujeeb Andrabi, Advocate.

Vs

UT of J&K and others

.…. Respondents
Through: Mr. Furqan Sofi, GA.

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




01. Heard learned counsel for both sides.

02. Perused the writ record and the documents
therewith.

03. The adjudication of this writ petition is going to
determine as to whether the petitioner-Aqib Ahmad Regu
shall continue to suffer preventive detention custody for its
full two years’ period or will come out earning restoration of
his personal liberty by release from the prison.

04.
The petitioner –Aqib Ahmad Regu, acting through
his father – Ghulam Nabi Regu, filed this writ petition on
29.05.2025 .
1 6
HCP No. 160/2025 Page of

05. In the writ petition, the petitioner is seeking
quashment of preventive detention order operating upon him
under the effects of the Jammu & Kashmir Public
Safety Act, 1978.

06.
The petitioner’s alleged state of activities came to be
profiled by the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora
who submitted a dossier to the respondent No. 2 – District
Magistrate, Pulwama whereby preventive detention of the
petitioner was solicited alleging that his state of activities
were and are prejudicial to security of the State.

07. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Pulwama came forward with issuance of an order No.
19/DMP/PSA/25 dated 01.05.2025 in terms of section 8 of
the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 directing the
detention of the petitioner so as to prevent him from acting in
a manner prejudicial to security of the State and his
confinement to the District Jail, Kathua. Detention order No.
19/DMP/PSA/25 dated 01.05.2025 , thus, resulted in arrest
and detention of the petitioner.

08.
The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Pulwama rested issuance of his detention order on grounds
of detention formulated in writing wherein the petitioner
came to be referred as an OGW of a banned terrorist
2 6
HCP No. 160/2025 Page of

organization Lashker-e-Toiba (LeT), from the possession of
whom, some posters of said banned organization are alleged
to have been recovered way back in the year 2021 resulting
in implication of the petitioner in FIR No. 65/2021 by the
Police Station Khrew in which connection the petitioner was
arrested in September, 2024 but later on came to be enlarged
on bail. In addition, the petitioner’s involvement in a criminal
case under FIR No. 44/2021 of the Police Station Pampore
is also highlighted in terms whereof from the possession of
the petitioner a recovery of 25 live rounds of AK-47 is said to
have been allegedly effected. In this criminal case also, the
petitioner is reported to have earned bail.

09. In the grounds of detention, it is recited that the
petitioner had been subjected to proceedings under section
107 read with section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 on 21.06.2024, 16.08.2024 and lastly to
proceedings under section 126 read with section 170 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 on
30.12.2024 but still the petitioner was reckoned to be a case
to be subjected to curtailment of personal liberty, though
without any reported overt and covert act of omission and
commission on his part to warrant subjecting him to suffer
curtailment of personal liberty otherwise a guaranteed
3 6
HCP No. 160/2025 Page of

fundamental right. The grounds of detention are the replica
of the dossier to put it in simple terms.

10. The petitioner, in his writ petition, has questioned
the exercise of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent No.
2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama in passing the detention
order. In the grounds of challenge as set out in the petition,
frontal challenge to the petitioner’s detention is that
detention order is based on irrelevant and extraneous
considerations.

11. In his writ petition, the petitioner refers to the fact
that previously also he was subjected to suffer preventive
detention custody in which connection he came to earn
quashment of his detention by the indulgence of the High
Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in terms of
judgment dated 02.03.2024 passed in LPA No. 277/2022
having arisen out of the writ petition WP(C) No. 247/2022 .
In this regard, the petitioner submits that the previous
detention order proceeded on the same premise as in the
present case.

12. This Court finds the present preventive detention of
the petitioner seriously flawed for a singular reason that the
Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora in his dossier
is nowhere referring to the fact about the petitioner’s
4 6
HCP No. 160/2025 Page of

previous preventive detention ordeal in the context that the
petitioner was able to earn restoration of his personal liberty
by taking the matter in appeal in LPA No. 277/2022 which
came to be allowed in his favour with a judgment dated
02.03.2024 .

13. Thus, if the purported proceedings under the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and BNSS, 2023 of June, 2024,
August, 2024 & December, 2024 were good enough facts to
be cited by the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Awantipora in his dossier, surely the petitioner’s previous
detention order and its quashment by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
was a fact of most serious and stature nature which ought
not to have suffered a miss of mention from the end of the Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora to the respondent
No. 2- District Magistrate, Pulwama who in turn ought to
have also been more vigilant to know that previously from his
very authority and order, the petitioner had been subjected to
preventive detention ordeal.

14. The manner in which the previous preventive
detention order aspect related to the petitioner has been
totally washed out from the exercise relatable to the present
preventive detention ordeal of the petitioner, it appears that
5 6
HCP No. 160/2025 Page of

the establishment at the end of the Sr. Superintendent of
Police (SSP), Awantipora and also at the end of the
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Srinagar, are not
maintaining any record at their respective end to serve as a
reminder as to whether a prospective detenue has a previous
history of preventive detention imposed or not.

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid singular serious flaw
attending the preventive detention of the petitioner, this
Court holds the detention order No. 19/DMP/PSA/25 dated
01.05.2025
passed by the respondent No. 2 – District
Magistrate, Pulwama read with approval/confirmation/
extension order passed by the respondent No. 1, all illegal
and hence warranted to be quashed which are, accordingly,
quashed.

16. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his
personal liberty by his release from the concerned Jail
wherever he is kept confined to which effect the
Superintendent concerned to act in abidance.
17.
Disposed of.

(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
29.06.2026
Opinder

Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No

Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No
6 6
HCP No. 160/2025 Page of