TARIQ AHMAD WAR vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR. (HOME)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
…
(Through Virtual Mode)
Reserved on: 27.08.2026
Pronounced on: 03.09.2026
Uploaded on: 03.09.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
HCP No. 150/2025

Tariq Ahmad War, Aged 49 years
S/o Late Ghulam Rasool War,
R/o Wailoo, Kralpora, District Baramulla
through his sister Mumtaza Akhter

……...Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Ajaz Ahmad Bedar Advocate

Versus
1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. District Magistrate Baramulla.
……Respondent(s)
Through:
Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner, sister of Tariq Ahmad War Son of Late Ghulam Rasool War
Resident of Wailoo, Kralpora, District Baramulla , for short detenue, is
challenging the detention order No. 19/DMB/PSA of 2024 dated 12.04.2024, for
short “impugned order” issued by District Magistrate Baramulla-respondent No.
2 herein, whereby, the detenue has been placed under preventive detention, on
the grounds taken in the memo of petition.
HCP No. 150/2025 Page 1 of 6

BRIEF FACTS
2. T he case of the petitioner is that the detenue has been arrested by the
respondents on vague, irrelevant and non-existing grounds. The detenue is stated
to be an innocent peace-loving citizen who has been falsely detained without any
allegations against him warranting exercise of such power. The petitioner inter
alia challenges the impugned detention order on the grounds that he has not been
furnished all the material which has been relied upon by the detaining authority
in making the detention order; the subjective satisfaction has not been derived by
the detaining authority itself; the grounds of detention have been virtually
formulated by the concerned SSP as the dossier submitted by the SSP is the
verbatim copy of the grounds of detention; the respondent No. 2 in derogation of
law, has not applied his mind as to whether the detention order was required to
be passed against the detenue; the detention order is based on stale grounds in
the background of detenue’s involvement in case FIR No. 165/2015 of Police
Station Pattan, for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Sections
302 RPC and 7/25 Arms Act and the representation submitted by the detenue has
not been considered violating thereby the constitutional mandate as provided
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; the detenue was being tried by
the competent court of law under substantive laws and had been granted bail
also.

3. Per contra, it is stated by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the
detenue was acting as an OGW of Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist outfit facilitating
transportation of militants; the detenue has a secessionist ideology; the
constitutional safeguards have been fulfilled in letter and spirit; the
representation filed by the detenue against his detention have also been
considered and rejected being devoid of merit.
HCP No. 150/2025 Page 2 of 6

4 . Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made
and perused the detention record.
5 . The perusal of the material placed on record would reveal that the
detenue has been arrested in connection with his involvement in case FIR no.
165/2015 of Police Station Pattan for the commission of offences punishable
in terms of Sections 302 RPC and 7/25 Arms Act.
6. The respondents have not effectively controverted the pleas raised by
the detenue in his petition. Nothing is said by the respondents insofar as the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is concerned. The grounds of
detention reflects at various places that the activities of the detenue had been
found prejudicial to the maintenance of peace but they have not specified
such activities anywhere in the grounds of detention or in the counter
affidavit. The respondents, furthermore, reflect in the grounds of detention
that:
“Reports received from field agencies are indicative of
the fact that you have been assigned a very important
role in carrying forward the illegal/anti-national
activities in view of the upcoming General Election to
Lok Sabha-2024.”

7. In view of above stated position, as reflected in the grounds of
detention, the respondents appear to have taken precautions to ensure that the
General Election of Lok Sabha-2024 were smoothly conducted; however, the
said elections are now well over.
8. Another aspect of the matter is that the detenue has been has been
involved in case FIR no. 165/2025 of Police Station Pattan, a criminal case,
HCP No. 150/2025 Page 3 of 6

reference whereof is made in the grounds of detention which presumably
forms a significant ground for passing detention order against the detenue,
however, the detention order, impugned in this petition, has admittedly been
passed in the year 2024 almost a decade later the date of FIR supra. This in
itself would suggest that the detention order has been based on stale grounds,
the practice deprecated by the Apex Court. Reference in this behalf can be
made to the judgment delivered in case titled Khaja Bilal v. State of
Telangana , reported as (2020) 13 SCC 32 .
9 . The detenue has also been granted bail by the competent court of law in
the aforesaid case and the respondents though having taken note of the said
fact in the grounds of detention, but nothing has been said anywhere, either in
the grounds of detention or in the counter affidavit, as to what constrained
them to believe that the substantive laws were not sufficient to curb the evil
and preventive detention is a necessity. This would unambiguously suggest
that the detaining authority has not applied its own mind while passing the
detention order which is sufficient to render the detention order unsustainable
in law. It has consistently been held by the Courts of law that violation of any
of the constitutional rights of the detenue, by the detaining authority, puts
under cloud the whole detention order. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the
recent Judgment of Supreme Court delivered in case titled as Joyi Kitty
Joseph v. Union of India & Ors., reported as { 2025} SCR 419 . Paragraphs 21
and 22 being relevant are taken note of:-
“ 21. The criminal prosecution launched and the
preventive detention ordered are on the very same
allegations of organised smuggling activities, through a
network set up, revealed on successive raids carried on
at various locations, on specific information received,
leading to recovery of huge cache of contraband. When
HCP No. 150/2025 Page 4 of 6

bail was granted by the jurisdictional Court, that too on
conditions, the detaining authority ought to have
examined whether they were sufficient to curb the evil of
further indulgence in identical activities; which is the
very basis of the preventive detention ordered. The
detention order being silent on that aspect, we interfere
with the detention order only on the ground of the
detaining authority having not looked into the conditions
imposed by the Magistrate while granting bail for the
very same offence; the allegations in which also have led
to the preventive detention, assailed herein, to enter a
satisfaction as to whether those conditions are sufficient
or not to restrain the detenu from indulging in further
like activities of smuggling.
22. We, hence, allow the appeal and set aside the order
of detention. The detenu shall be released forthwith, if
still in custody.”

10. The respondents cannot be expected to take recourse to hollow
assertions only, as they were obliged, by law, to see that the detenue has
indeed indulged in the similar activities for which he was granted bail and
there were reasonable prognosis about his future conduct, in light of the well-
articulated circumstances, that similar activities would likely be repeated by
the detenue. The Supreme Court has been consistently holding that the
grounds of detention should always be proximate, pertinent and relevant as
the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not immune to judicial
review though an exclusive domain of the detaining authority.
11 . The judgment of Apex Court of which reference and reliance is made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner delivered in case titled Sushanta
Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura & others reported as 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813
is quite relevant to the facts of the instant. The paragraph No. 23 being
relevant is taken note of herein, thus:
“A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would
indicate that the accused arrested under NDPS Act, 1985
can be ordered to be released on bail only if the Court is
HCP No. 150/2025 Page 5 of 6

satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If the
appellant herein was ordered to be released on bail
despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985,
then the same is suggestive that the Court concerned
might not have found any prima facie case against him.
Had this fact been brought to the notice of the detaining
authority, then it would have influenced the mind of the
detaining authority one way of the other on the question
whether or not to make an order of detention. The State
never thought to even challenge the bail orders passed by
the special court releasing the appellant on bail.”
12 . The impugned order has been issued on 12.04.2024 and was valid till
12.04.2026, therefore, the impugned order has outlived its life also.
13 . Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and detention order No.
19/DMB/PSA of 2024 dated 12.04.2024, issued by Deputy Commissioner,
Baramulla-respondent No. 2, detaining the detenue Tariq Ahmad War Son of
Late Ghulam Rasool War Resident of Wailoo, Kralpora, District Baramulla, is
quashed and the respondents are directed to release the detenue forthwith.
14. The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the
respondents against receipt.
15. Disposed of.

(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
Jammu
03.09.2026
Mohammad Yasin Dar, PS

Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes/No.
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes.


HCP No. 150/2025 Page 6 of 6