DANISH FAROOQ ALIAS RAJ SOUB vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR. (HOME)

1
P a g e |

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR




HCP No.240/2025


Reserved on: 28.04.2026

Pronounced on: 11.05.2026
Uploaded on: ____________

Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full


Danish Farooq @ Raj Soub (18 years)
S/O Farooq Ahmad Mir
(Through his father)
R/O Hunipora Wanpora,
District Pulwama

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Adv. Shheryar.


Vs.

1. Union Territory of J&K through
Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of J&K, Civil Sectt. Srinagar.

2. District Magistrate, Pulwama.


…Respondent(s)

Through: GA Zahid Qais Noor vice
GA Furqan Yaqub Sofi.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the
1.
Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashment of Detention Order No.
10/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2-
District Magistrate, Pulwama under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir
Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short “PSA”), whereby the detenue has
been placed under preventive detention in order to deter him to act in a
manner prejudicial to the ‘security of the State’.

2
P a g e |


2. The principal ground of challenge is that the detenue was a juvenile on
the date of alleged activities as well as on the date of registration of FIR
No.293/2023 , on the basis of which impugned detention order was
passed, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterated the grounds urged in
the petition, argued that the petitioner was below 18 years on the
relevant date and, thus, governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015. He submits that the detaining
authority has failed to consider this crucial aspect; that the petitioner has
been detained under the Public Safety Act on false and flimsy grounds
without any justification. He further raised the plea of vagueness in the
grounds of detention. It is being stated that the allegations leveled in the
grounds of detention relate to the year 2023 and those activities have no
proximity with present time for the purpose of preventive detention
unless any fresh activity is not attributed to the petitioner. It was prayed
to upset the impugned order being unsustainable for the aforestated
grounds.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, submits that the
petitioner is a habitual offender whose activities are prejudicial to the
security of the State; that the detention of the petitioner is based on
subjective satisfaction derived from relevant material; and that the PSA
does not expressly bar detention of a juvenile.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record
produced by learned counsel for the respondents and considered.

6. The factual background of the present case is that the detenue came to
be arrested in FIR No.293 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 302
IPC, 2/25 A.Act, registered at Police Station, Pulwama, alleging

3
P a g e |

involvement in antinational/subversive activities including killing of a
civilian (non-local) at Pulwama; that the petitioner was also found
working as potential OGW of killed terrorists namely Riyaz Ahmad Dar
@ Khalid @ Sheeraz R/O Sathergund Kakapora and Rayees Ahmad
Dar R/O Larve Pulwama; that the petitioner was earlier lodged in
Juvenile Home Harvan, Srinagar for a period of fifteen(15) months and
was subsequently released on bail on 02.01.2025; that after his release
the detaining authority observed the activities of the petitioner highly
prejudicial to the security of the State; that being highly motivated to
carry out the nefarious designs, the petitioner was not likely to desist
from indulging in subversive activities, therefore, the detaining
authority in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which
are prejudicial to the security of the State, ordered to detain him,
invoking the provisions of The J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

7. It is not in dispute that the impugned detention order relies upon the
case of year 2023 i.e. FIR No.293/2023 registered against the detenue,
the allegations of indulging himself in subversive activities, and the
Police dossier recommending preventive detention of the petitioner.

8. The petitioner has placed on record the Secondary School Examination
Certificate issued by The Jammu & Kashmir Board of School
Education, indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 07.04.2007.
The said document has not been rebutted by the respondents. Rather it
is also the case of the respondents that detenue as juvenile was involved
in the case in the year 2023. The grounds of detention has indicated the
age of the detenue as 18 years and 19 days as on date of his detention
under Public Safety Act i.e., 30.04.2025, which means that on the date
of his alleged involvement in the case registered in the year 2023, he

4
P a g e |

was of the age of 16 years or so, as such, he was juvenile on the day of
occurrence. Moreover, he was detained in a Juvenile Home and tried by
a Juvenile Board.

9. The law does not permit the UT/State to treat a child as a threat to be
preventively detained. The constitutional vision mandates reform, not
repression. Preventive detention is an extraordinary power, its
application to a child, not only violates statutory safeguards but also
erodes the constitutional commitment to reformative justice. The
Supreme Court of India in ‘ Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana’
reported as AIR 2013 SC 3467, while making reference to Rule 12 of
the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, held
that:-
“…In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or
equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is the
highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is
available, no other evidence can be relied upon. Only in
the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages
consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school
first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of
birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is
liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other
material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such
entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate
issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a
panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available,
then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into
consideration, for determining the age of the child
concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively
determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of
any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the
determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis
of medical opinion.”

10. The next question is whether alleged activities committed during
juvenility by the detenue can be relied upon to justify his preventive
detention. Admittedly, the petitioner was juvenile when he was arrested
in case FIR No. 293/2023 and was later on released on bail after

5
P a g e |

spending fifteen months in Juvenile Home Harvan, Srinagar. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case ‘Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh
reported as (2019) 19 SCC 710 observed that :-
Bishnoi’
“…The thrust of the legislation, i.e. ‘ The Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000
’
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
as well as ‘
of Children) Act, 2015
’ is that even if a juvenile is
convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there
is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by
such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object
to reintegrate such juvenile back in the Society as a
normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central
Government, State Governments, the Board, and other
agencies while implementing the provisions of the said
Act…..”
Tahir Riyaz Dar vs.
Division Bench of this Court in a case ‘
decided on 06.11.2025 ,
Union Territory of J&K’ (LPA No.121/2025)
observing that the preventive detention must be based on relevant,
proximate and legally admissible material and the acts committed as a
juvenile, lose their determinative value for future preventive action ,
held as under :
“…An illegal act committed by a juvenile does not
stigmatize his future and likewise, any illegal act
committed by the juvenile cannot form the basis for
issuance of a detention order under the Act
subsequently, more particularly when the juvenile
cannot be detained under the Act. As such, this Court
is of the view that the appellant could not have been
detained for activities allegedly committed while he
was juvenile.

6
P a g e |


11. Applying the aforesaid principle, it is evident that the detention order in
the present case is substantially founded upon FIR of year 2023 and
allegations pertaining to the period when the detenue was a juvenile. A
perusal of the detention order reveals no reference to the age of the
petitioner, no consideration of applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act,
but only mechanical reproduction of the Police dossier. The failure to
consider a vital and relevant factor i.e., juvenility of the petitioner on
the date of alleged activities, renders the order vitiated on account of
non-application of mind. It is well settled that subjective satisfaction
must be based on complete and relevant material, failing which the
order cannot be sustained.

12. Another limb of the argument is with regard to preventive detention
which is an exception to personal liberty and must be strictly construed.
In reported as (2011) 5
“Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Naidu & Anr.”
SCC , the Supreme Court held that detention cannot be resorted to when
ordinary law is sufficient. I t has been observed that:-
“29. Prevention detention is, by nature, repugnant
to democratic ideas and an anathema to the
rule of law. No such law exists in the USA
and in England (except during war time).
Since, however, Article 22(3)(b) of the
Constitution of India permits preventive
detention, we cannot hold it illegal but we
must confine the power of preventive
detention within very narrow limits, otherwise
we will be taking away the great right to
liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which was won after
long, arduous and historic struggles. It
follows, therefore, that if the ordinary law of
the land (the Penal Code and other penal
statutes) can deal with a situation, recourse to
a preventive detention law will be illegal.
30. Whenever an order under a preventive detention
law is challenged one of the questions the
court must ask in deciding its legality is: Was

7
P a g e |

the ordinary law of the land sufficient to deal
with the situation? If the answer is in the
affirmative, the detention order will be illegal.
In the present case, the charge against the
detenu was of selling expired drugs after
changing their labels. Surely the relevant
provisions in the Penal Code and the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act were sufficient to deal with
this situation. Hence, in our opinion, for this
reason also the detention order in question
was illegal.”

13. In the present case the detenue could have been dealt with under the
Juvenile Justice framework, however, Detaining Authority has shown
no compelling necessity to bypass such mechanism. The impugned
detention order, thus, fails the test of reasonableness, legality, and
proportionality .

14. Besides his involvement in case FIR registered in the year 2023,
detenue has been alleged to have worked as OGW providing logistic
support to killed terrorists Riyaz Ahmad Dar and Rayees Ahmad Dar
residents of Larve Pulwama, subversive activities motivating youth of
the areas for joining the terrorist ranks and closely associated with the
active terrorists . The grounds of detention, however, did not specify the
particular activities but vague and general statements have been made.


15. The Apex Court in a case titled “ Jahangir Khan Fazal Khan Pathan
Vs. Police Commissioner & Anr.” reported as (1989) 3 SCC 590
observed on the sustainability of detention order on vague averments in
the grounds of detention as under:-
“8. The other grounds regarding the vagueness of
the averments made in the grounds about the
petitioner indulging in criminal activities apart
from the five criminal cases lodged under the
Prohibition Act and mentioned in the ground of
detention do not satisfy the requirements
envisaged in Section 3(1) of the PASA Act
inasmuch as the said five specific criminal cases
have no connection with the maintenance of

8
P a g e |

public order. The aforesaid criminal activity does
not appear to have disturbed the even tempo of
life of the people of Ahmedabad City or of the
particular locality. Furthermore the averments
have been made in the grounds are; Accordingly,
upon careful perusal of complaint and papers
enclosed with the proposal it appears that you are
a prohibition bootlegger, doing illegal activity of
selling English and Deshi liquor. You and your
companion are bearing and showing deadly
weapons like Rampuri knife to the innocent
persons passing through the said locality on the
premise of being of police „Batmider‟ of Police.
And you are beating innocent persons who
oppose your activity of liquor etc. These
statements are vague and without any particulars
as to what place or when and to whom the
detenue threatened with Rampuri knife and
whom he has alleged to have beaten. These vague
averments made in the grounds of detention
hereinbefore are bad inasmuch as the detenue
could not make an effective representation
against the impugned order of detention. As such
the detention order is illegal and bad.”


16. reported
In a case “ Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telengana & Ors.”
as (2023) 9 SCC 587
the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down following
tests to determine the validity of order of detention:-
“49.The other aspect requiring some guidance for
detaining authorities and on which we wish to
comment is that there is no requirement in law of
orders of detention being expressed in language
that would normally be considered elegant or
artistic. An order of detention, which is capable of
comprehension, has to precisely set forth the
grounds of detention without any vagueness. The
substance of the order and how it is 36
understood by the detenu determines its nature.
An order in plain and simple language providing
clarity of how the subjective satisfaction was
formed is what a detenu would look for, since the
detenu has a right to represent against the order
of detention and claim that such order should not
have been made at all. If the detenu fails to
comprehend the grounds of detention, the very
purpose of affording him the opportunity to make
a representation could be defeated. At the same
time, the detaining authority ought to ensure that
the order does not manifest consideration of

9
P a g e |

extraneous factors. The detaining authority must
be cautious and circumspect that no extra or
additional word or sentence finds place in the
order of detention, which evinces the human
factor - his mindset of either acting with personal
predilection by invoking the stringent preventive
detention laws to avoid or oust judicial scrutiny,
given the restrictions of judicial review in such
cases, or as an authority charged with the notion
of overreaching the courts, chagrined and
frustrated by orders granting bail to the detenu
despite stiff opposition raised by the State and
thereby failing in the attempt to keep the detenu
behind bars”.


For what has been observed and held by the Apex Court in the afore-
17.
quoted cases and having regard to what has been observed hereinabove
by this Court, the impugned detention order is vitiated and does not
sustain in the eyes of law.

18. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
Detention Order No. 10/DMP/PSA/25 dated 30.04.2025, is, hereby,
quashed. As a sequel, the detenue namely Danish Farooq @ Raj Soub
S/O Farooq Ahmad Mir R/O Hunipora Wanpora Tehsil & District
Pulwama , is directed to be released from the custody forthwith, if not
required in any other case(s).

Scanned detention record, as produced, be sent back.
19.

( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
11.05.2026
Muzammil. Q

Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No