ISHTIYAQ AHMAD MALIK THROUGH HIS MOTHER NAZEERA BEGUM vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND ORS

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


Pronounced on : 29.06.2026

HCP No. 177/2025


Ishtiyaq Ahmad Malik
…..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Uthman Gani, Advocate

Vs

UT of J&K and others


.…. Respondents
Through: Mr. Jahangeer A. Dar, 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 petitioner – Ishtiyaq Ahmad Malik, acting
through his mother – Nazeera Begum came forward with the
institution of present writ petition on 31.05.2025 being
aggrieved of preventive detention imposed custody upon him
by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Anantnag in
exercise of power under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety
Act, 1978 in terms whereof the petitioner came to be taken
1 8
HCP No. 177/2025 Page of

into detention custody on 28.04.2025 and confined in the
Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.

04.
The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Anantnag, in exercise of power under the Jammu & Kashmir
Public Safety Act, 1978, issued detention order No.
09/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated 26.04.2025 whereby the
petitioner’s personal liberty was reckoned to be prejudicial to
the security of the State/Union Territory of J&K and, thus,
necessitating his detention in order to prevent him from
acting and indulging in activities so reckoned prejudicial to
the security of the State.

05.
It is the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Anantnag who, vide his letter No. CS/71/2025/5676-81
dated 26.04.2025, had come to submit a dossier related to
the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Anantnag, thereby, soliciting issuance of detention order
against the petitioner.

06. Purportedly acting upon said dossier of the Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Anantnag, the respondent No.
2 – District Magistrate, Anantnag formulated purported
grounds of detention referring therein about the petitioner’s
credentials as being a terminated Govt. Servant in terms of
2 8
HCP No. 177/2025 Page of

Govt. Order No. 461-JK(GAD) of 2025 dated 10.04.2025
on account of his involvement in FIR No. 76 of 2022
registered by the Police Station Kokernag for alleged
commission of offences under section 7/25 Indian Arms Act,
1959 and section 16/20/38 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1968 in which connection the petitioner was
arrested on 07.05.2022 but getting bailed out by Special NIA
Court on 13.04.2024, as an undertrial.

07. The petitioner,s antecedents dating back to 2016 &
2017 in terms of his alleged involvement in FIR No.
120/2016 of the Police Station Kokernag and FIR No.
72/2017 again of Police Station Kokernag came to be
highlighted in the grounds of detention on the basis whereof
the petitioner was reckoned to be in continuing engagement
in terror supportive activities and also actuated with a design
to upset Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra. The petitioner was
reckoned, on the basis of purported reliable human and
electronic source information, being in continuing association
with active militants and playing the role as a key facilitator
for movement and shelter of the active militants.

08.
In order to neutralize the petitioner’s alleged state
of activities, normal legal framework was opined by the
3 8
HCP No. 177/2025 Page of

respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Anantnag to be
insufficient to deter the petitioner from subversive tendencies
and, thus, subjective satisfaction came to be drawn in
ordering the preventive detention of the petitioner which
came to be carried out into effect and in that state of
preventive detention custody the petitioner came forward
with the present writ petition.

09. In his writ petition, the petitioner has assailed his
preventive detention on the basis of the grounds as set out in
para 6 (a) to (q).

10. The petitioner has referred to the fact that his
father and grandfather had fallen victims to the terrorists in
the year 1996 and 2002 and, thus, the petitioner cannot be
blemished in the manner as has come to be done by the
District Police. The petitioner refers to his appointment on
compassionate basis under SRO-43 before his termination on
account of his implication in FIR/s as mentioned in the
grounds of detention.

11. The petitioner has strongly agitated the aspect that
in connection with a criminal case with respect to the latest
FIR No. 76/2022, the grant of bail in his favour by a Special
NIA Court is an aspect of serious importance and implication
4 8
HCP No. 177/2025 Page of

pointing towards the fact that the petitioner was able to earn
the bail on the basis of merits of his plea and that thereafter
the petitioner has not breached any term and condition
imposed upon him to enjoy continuation of bail in his favour.

12. The petitioner is said to have made a
representation addressed to the respondent No. 2 – District
Magistrate, Anantnag thereby seeking re-consideration of the
decision of subjecting the petitioner to preventive detention
custody. The petitioner is also said to have made a
representation to the Principal Secretary to Govt., Home
Department, J&K, sent through registered post mode and
also against a written receipt dated 20.05.2025 . Said
representation of the petitioner came to be considered and
rejected about which aspect the petitioner was fully notified.

13. In the counter affidavit to the writ petition, the
respondents in general and the respondent No. 2 – District
Magistrate, Anantnag in particular, have come forward
defending the imposition of preventive detention upon the
petitioner on account of his alleged state of activities being
prejudicial to the security of the State, warranting maximum
preventive detention custody period for the petitioner to
suffer out of which the petitioner by the time of hearing of
5 8
HCP No. 177/2025 Page of

this petition had come to suffer eight months of preventive
detention custody.

14. When this Court makes a reading of the grounds of
detention which literally are reproduction of the contents of
the dossier, a prominent fact comes out staring that the
alleged adverse antecedents of the petitioner are relatable to
FIR No. 120 of 2016 & FIR No. 72 of 2017 on the basis
whereof the petitioner was never reckoned to be unworthy of
continuing in Govt. service and it is only the last FIR No. 76
of 2022 by reference to which the petitioner is said to have
suffered termination from service.

15.
FIR No. 120 of 2016 & FIR No. 72 of 2017 can,
by no stretch of claim and authority, be reckoned to be the
founding facts for consideration of subjecting the petitioner
to suffer preventive detention and that leaves only FIR No.
76 of 2022 as the reportable alleged activity of the petitioner.

16.
By timeline of said FIR No.76 of 2022 preventive
detention of the petitioner taking place in 2025 makes it a
very distanced event and, thus, rules out even said adverse
antecedent of the petitioner as a founding basis of the
petitioner’s preventive detention.
6 8
HCP No. 177/2025 Page of

17. Thereafter, there is nothing in the name of grounds
in the grounds of detention on the basis whereof the
petitioner could be reckoned to be subjected to preventive
detention custody except ipse dixit of the District Police
Anantnag and supplemented by the same obliging mindset of
the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Anantnag.

18. Grant of bail in favour of the petitioner in a serious
criminal case involving offences under Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 is not a fact to be dismissed at leisure
from consideration.

19. If the petitioner, upon earning bail in 2024 from a
regular criminal court, was still reckoned to be indulging in
some objectionable activities prejudicial to the maintenance
of security of the State, the first legal course of action at the
end of the District Police ought to have been recourse to the
Special NIA Court for seeking cancellation of the petitioner’s
bail but that option at no point of time ever presented itself
before the District Police, Anantnag meaning thereby there
was nothing at the disposal of the District Police, Anantnag
to approach Special NIA Court to report against the petitioner
for seeking cancellation of his bail but simultaneously, on the
other hand, the preventive detention comes to visit the
7 8
HCP No. 177/2025 Page of

petition as if punitive punishment in advance is being served
to the petitioner not by the criminal court but by the District
Police of Anantnag.

20.
It is here where entire exercise of preventive
detention of the petitioner went astray rendering the very
exercise of jurisdiction illegal.

21. Accordingly, impugned detention order No.
09/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated 26.04.2025 read with
approval/confirmation/extension order whatsoever passed by
the respondents No. 2 & 1 respectively are hereby quashed.

22. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his
personal liberty by his release from the concerned Jail
wherever he is kept detained, for which purpose the
Superintendent of the concerned Jail to release the petitioner
forthwith.

23. Disposed of.

(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
29.06.2026
Opinder

Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No

Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No
8 8
HCP No. 177/2025 Page of