FAYAZ AHMAD LONE vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


Pronounced on : 29.06.2026

HCP No. 162/2025


Fayaz Ahmad Lone
…..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, Advocate

Vs

UT of J&K and others


.…. Respondents
Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, 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- Fayaz Ahmad Lone, acting through
his father – Ghulam Qadir Lone, came forward with
institution of the present writ petition on 29.05.2025 while
being in a state of preventive detention custody lodged in
District Jail, Rajouri and has sought restoration of his
personal liberty.

04. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Pulwama, in purported exercise of power under section 8 of
1 8
HCP No. 162/2025 Page of

the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 came up with
issuance of an order No. 30/DMP/PSA/25 dated
07.05.2025
thereby directing the preventive detention of the
petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in a manner
prejudicial to the security of the State. Issuance of this order
15.05.2025
led to arrest and detention of the petitioner on
onwards which the petitioner is in continuing state of
preventive detention custody which is meant to last for two
years as being the maximum period prescribed under the
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

05. The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Pulwama was, infact, approached by the Sr. Superintendent
of Police (SSP), Awantipora with a dossier accompanying
No. Conf/PSA/25/158-61 29.04.2025
letter dated in terms
whereof the alleged state of activities of the petitioner being
prejudicial to the security of the State were reported for
seeking indulgence of the respondent No. 2 – District
Magistrate, Pulwama to order the preventive detention of the
petitioner.

06. By purportedly acting upon said dossier, the
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama came to
formulate the grounds of detention in terms whereof the
2 8
HCP No. 162/2025 Page of

petitioner came to be identified as being in close relation with
terrorist organization-Jaish-e-Mohd (JeM) whose aim and
object is to separate Union Territory of J&K from the Union of
India and annex it with Pakistan for achieving which said
terrorist organization has indulged in killing numbers of
innocent people besides causing extensive damage to the
public/private property. The petitioner is said to have
developed separatist ideology right from his teenage which
got strengthened with passage of time leading to his contact
with Jaish-e-Mohd (JeM). The petitioner is alleged to be one
of the loyalists of an eliminated terrorist commander –Waqas
of Jaish-e-Mohd (JeM) by helping him voluntarily and
enabling him to carry out subversive activities.

FIR
07. An incident of 2015 resulting in registration of
No. 87/2015 for alleged commission of offence under section
392 & 307 Ranbir Penal Code by the Police Station Tral
relatable to the petitioner, the petitioner’s criminal
antecedents have been highlighted in the grounds of
detention.

08. Likewise an incident of 2019 relatable to
FIR No. 36 of 2019
registration of again by the Police
Station Tral involving the petitioner is also highlighted in the
3 8
HCP No. 162/2025 Page of

grounds of detention. Last incident of conflict of the
petitioner with law and enforcement agency is of 18.01.2024
23.01.2024
and by reference to proceedings under section
107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner
is said to have been warned by the concerned Executive
Magistrate Ist Class by seeking a bond from the petitioner.

09. It is this narrative on the basis of which the
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama held that
the same afforded him a subjective satisfaction to order
preventive detention of the petitioner and, thus, led to the
No. 30/DMP/PSA/25
issuance of the detention order dated
07.05.2025
.

10. The petitioner in his writ petition has assailed his
preventive detention on the grounds set out in para 4(a) to
(k).

11. The petitioner asserts and assails that the
preventive detention is baseless and misconceived without an
iota of factual basis available with the District Police
Awantipora and in turn with the respondent No. 2 – District
Magistrate, Pulwama wherefrom to read that the petitioner
was indulgent in activities prejudicial to the security of the
State.
4 8
HCP No. 162/2025 Page of

12. The respondents in the counter affidavit to the writ
petition have come forward defending the exercise of
jurisdiction at the end of the District Police Awantipora in
submitting a dossier against the petitioner for seeking his
preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public
Safety Act, 1978 and consequent issuance of the detention
order by the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Pulwama.

13. The grounds of detention in support of the
preventive detention order are mirror image of the dossier
submitted by the Sr. Superintendent of Police(SSP),
Awantipora meaning thereby even the subjective satisfaction
of Sr. Superintendent of Police(SSP), Awantipora came to be
borrowed literally by the respondent No. 2 – District
Magistrate, Pulwama, otherwise a barren dossier against the
petitioner bearing no factual reference whatsoever worth
name of some recent origin to show case the petitioner in the
manner as sounding in the dossier as well as in the grounds
of detention, the petitioner was picked up for suffering the
preventive detention.

14. To put in simple words, the Sr. Superintendent of
Police (SSP), Awantipora through his dossier is meaning to
5 8
HCP No. 162/2025 Page of

say that subjecting a citizen to preventive detention custody
is a matter of ipse dixit for which nothing factual is required
to be reported except self entertained impression and
assumption on the part of the District Police.

15. There is no reflection of reasoning and rightly so
because of lack of facts on the part of the Sr. Superintendent
of Police (SSP), Awantipora followed by the respondent No. 2
– District Magistrate, Pulwama that if the petitioner had been
subjected to a final order under section 107 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for keeping good behavior so as to
ensure that he desists from attempting to indulge or even
indulging in anti-social and anti-national activities, then why
the forfeiture of said bond was not resorted to penalize the
petitioner not only with financial consequences but also
preventive detention by reference to section 107 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

16.
Personal liberty of a citizen is not a play thing for
the District Police and District Magistracy to flirt with least
realizing that there is nothing highest in the Constitution of
India in terms of a right/s than fundamental right/s
guaranteed to citizen/s of India. Any action of the State and
its officials which tends to interfere and intermeddle with any
6 8
HCP No. 162/2025 Page of

of the fundamental rights in particular fundamental right to
life and personal liberty is supposed to be strictly in
accordance with law providing and prescribing. Simply
because, J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 provides for preventive
detention of a person with respect to the contingencies as
envisaged therein does not hand out a licence to the District
Police and/or District Magistrate or for that matter even the
Government to resort to preventive detention as a matter of
routine.

17. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that
very exercise of jurisdiction at the end of the Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Awantipora followed by the
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama under the
J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 was and is vitiated with serious
illegality rendering the preventive detention order No.
30/DMP/PSA/25 07.05.2025
dated read with approval/
confirmation/ extension order passed by the respondent No.
1 illegal liable to be quashed and are, accordingly, quashed.

18. 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
7 8
HCP No. 162/2025 Page of

Superintendent of the concerned Jail to release the petitioner
forthwith.

19. 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. 162/2025 Page of