NAYEEM AHMAD KHAN vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 28.04.2026
Pronounced on: 15.05.2026
Uploaded on: 15.05.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
HCP No.242/2025
NAYEEM AHMAD KHAN
...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Z. A. Qureshi, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Athar Rashid, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG,
with Mr. Haarish Khan, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has
challenged detention order bearing No.DMS/PSA/26/2025 dated
02.06.2025, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar, in exercise of
powers conferred by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978,
whereby the detenue, namely, Nayeem Ahmad Khan , has been
placed under preventive detention so as to prevent him from indulging
in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K.
2) It has been contended by the petitioner that the allegations
mentioned in the grounds of detention are vague. It has been
submitted that impugned detention order has been passed without
application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent
HCP No.
242
/202
5

Page
1
of
5

and stale, on the basis of which no prudent man can make a
representation against such allegations. It has been further contended
that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the
instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not been provided
to the petitioner. It has been further urged that there has been non-
application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the
impugned detention order as the detenue was already admitted to bail
in the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention but the said fact is
not mentioned in the grounds of detention and that the representation
submitted by the petitioner against the impugned detention order has
not been considered as no result of consideration has been conveyed to
him.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that
the impugned detention order is based on a reasonable predilection of
future behaviour and the same has been passed after considering the
past conduct of the detenue. It has been contended that the activities
of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is
pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with
the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over
to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It
has been further contended that the detenue was informed that he can
make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining
authority against his detention. It is also averred in the reply affidavit
that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have
been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that
HCP No.
242
/202
5

Page
2
of
5

the 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) 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 following grounds:
(i) That there has been non-application of mind on the part
of the detaining authority as the detenue has already
been admitted to bail in FIR Nos.61/2018 and 85/2018
registered with P/S Pantha Chowk, but this fact has not
been mentioned in the grounds of detention.
(ii) That the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic,
which prevented the detenue from making an effective
representation against his detention.
5) From a perusal of the material available on file, the ground
regarding non-application of mind on the part of the detaining
authority appears to be forceful, inasmuch as the grounds of detention
do not bear any reference to the fact that the petitioner had already
been admitted to bail in both the FIRs mentioned therein terms of the
orders passed by the court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner
has placed on record copies of orders passed by the courts of learned
Special Judge (Designated under NIA Act), Srinagar, and Additional
Sessions Judge TADA/POTA, Srinagar, whereby he has been enlarged
on bail in the aforesaid FIRs. However, this fact does not find mention
in the grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority. The
non-mentioning of this important fact in the grounds of detention
exhibits non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority.
This shows that the detaining authority has not meticulously examined
HCP No.
242
/202
5

Page
3
of
5

the record while passing the impugned order of detention which
renders the same unsustainable in law. I am supported in my aforesaid
view by the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of
Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Ors . AIR
1987 SC 137, Rekha v. State of T.N . (2011) 5 SCC 244, and
Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite v. State of Maharashtra and others ,
(2012) 2 SCC 72.
6) On perusal of the grounds of detention, the ground projected
regarding vagueness of the averments made in the grounds of
detention, appears to be forceful. In the grounds of detention, there is
no mention of the particulars of the places and the identity of the
terrorists of the banned terrorist organization, to whom the petitioner
was allegedly providing logistic support. The particulars of the period
when the detenue is alleged to have provided logistic support to the
terrorists are also not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Thus, the
grounds, being vague lacking in material particulars, 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 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
HCP No.
242
/202
5

Page
4
of
5

SCC 370 and Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. The Commissioner of
Police, Ahmedabad City and Ors. 1989 (1) Crimes 176 (SC).
7) Apart from the above, it has been mentioned in the grounds of
detention that the petitioner was bound down in terms of Section
126/170 of BNSS on 23.04.2025, and he was released on furnishing
personal bonds. There is nothing on record to show that the
respondents have either taken any steps to proceed against the
petitioner for having committed breach of the bond executed by him in
the aforesaid proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the
respondents were justified in passing the impugned order of detention.
The respondents should have taken requisite steps for proceeding
against the petitioner for violation of the bond executed by him instead
of placing him in custody under the law of preventive detention, which
is not the appropriate remedy.
8) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the
impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to
release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided
he is not required in connection with any other case.
9) The record be returned to learned counsel for the respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
15.05.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No

HCP No.
242
/202
5

Page
5
of
5