UNEEB NASEER MIR 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. 96/2025


Uneeb Naseer Mir

…..Petitioner

Through: Mr. Abdul Muizz, Advocate

Vs

UT of J&K and others


.…. Respondents
Through: Ms. Maha Majid,

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 institution of this writ petition taking place on
14.05.2025 is in terms of habeas corpus jurisdiction vested
in this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India
whereby the petitioner – Uneeb Naseer Mir, acting through
his Uncle – Mohammad Lateef Mir, is seeking quashment of
preventive detention custody being suffered by him under the
Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
1 7
HCP No. 96/2025 Page of

04. The Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar
came to profile the alleged activities of the petitioner which
were reckoned to be deserving preventive detention of the
petitioner and, accordingly, a dossier accompanying letter
No. LGL/Det/2025/13234-37 dated 29.04.2025 came to
be submitted to the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Srinagar soliciting exercise of jurisdiction under the Jammu
& Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 to order the preventive
detention of the petitioner.

05. The respondent No. 2 Magistrate,
–District
Srinagar, on his part by a purported study of the dossier,
came to formulate the grounds of detention thereby holding
that the alleged reported state of activities of the petitioner
was good enough to direct his preventive detention in order
to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial
to the security of the State.

06.
Accordingly, order No. DMS/PSA/17/2025 dated
03.05.2025
came to be passed by the respondent No. 2 –
District Magistrate, Srinagar ordering the preventive
detention of the petitioner and his confinement in the Central
Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.
2 7
HCP No. 96/2025 Page of

07. The petitioner came to be taken into custody on
06.05.2025 and handed over to the Superintendent Central
Jail Kot Bhalwal Jammu to be kept confined there to serve
the period of detention which came to be approved and
consequently confirmed and extended to last for full two
years’ detention period.

08. The preventive detention imposed upon the
petitioner is a sequel to the previous detention order No.
DMS/PSA/150/2024 dated 15.11.2022 also passed by the
respondent No.2 – District Magistrate, Srinagar in terms
whereof the petitioner was ordered to be detained and was
detained so as to prevent him from acting in a manner
prejudicial to the security of the State.

09. The petitioner had come to challenge his
preventive detention as effected in terms of the detention
order No. DMS/PSA/150/2024 dated 15.11.2022 in a writ
petition WP(Crl) No. 768/2022 which resulted in quashment
of detention order No. DMS/PSA/150/2024 dated
15.11.2022 by virtue of judgment dated 07.03.2024 and the
petitioner was able to come out of his preventive detention
custody to resume his day-to-day life as a free citizen of India
3 7
HCP No. 96/2025 Page of

but only to come to be detained again in terms of detention
order No. DMS/PSA/17/2025 dated 03.05.2025 .

10. The petitioner has challenged his detention on the
grounds as set out in para 6(a) to (n).

11. The challenge posed by the petitioner to his
preventive detention proceeds on number of grounds
essence of which is that his second time detention order is
vindictive in nature and punitive in intent.

12. The respondents, in their counter affidavit filed on
25.07.2025, came forward defending the preventive
detention of the petitioner saying that on the basis of facts
and circumstances the preventive detention of the petitioner
was rendered indispensable.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has come up
with a reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of
“Chhagan Bhagwan Kahaar Vs N. L.
Kalna and others” (1989)2 SCC 318 to emphasize the plea
that without any intervening reportable acts of omission or
commission on the part of the petitioner particularly post-
quashment of his first preventive detention order, the
petitioner was mechanically subjected to suffer second time
preventive detention.
4 7
HCP No. 96/2025 Page of

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
“Ramesh Vs State of Gujarat and others” (1989)4 SCC
124 which is also pertaining to the requirement of basic
materials in passing fresh order of detention for enabling
entertainment of subjective satisfaction by detention order
making Magistrate.

15. When this Court makes a comparative reading of
previous detention order No. DMS/PSA/150/2022 dated
15.11.2022
also passed by the respondent No. 2 herein–
District Magistrate, Srinagar at the asking of Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar, this court finds that
there is no iota of difference between the grounds of
detention in support of said previous detention order and the
present detention order except that a stray and insignificant
reference of Patrol Book of 26.04.2025 and GD Report of
26.04.2025 of Police Station Nowgam meaning to count as
intervening developments for subjecting the petitioner to
preventive detention custody.

16.
The respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Srinagar has nowhere set out the contents of Patrol Book
dated 26.04.2025 and GD report of 26.04.2025 , as to what
5 7
HCP No. 96/2025 Page of

actually came to be reported therein qua the petitioner for
enabling him to know that particular reported alleged state of
activities on his part by reference to the aforesaid Patrol Book
of 26.04.2025 and GD report of 26.04.2025 weighed heavily
with the District Police and the District Magistrate, Srinagar
to consider subjecting the petitioner to preventive detention
so as to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to
the to the security of the State.

17. There is non-application of mind on the part of the
respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Srinagar which is writ
large on the face of the grounds of detention in support of the
present impugned detention order wherein the respondent
No. 2 – District Magistrate, Srinagar is referring to previous
detention order No. DMS/PSA/150/2022 by reference to
date 15.11.2024 contrary to the actual date i.e. 15.11.2022
meaning thereby that it is the concern Clerk in the
establishment of the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Srinagar who was thinking and typing the grounds of
detention for the respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate,
Srinagar to sign as a matter of ritual and passing through
motion rather than the application of mind of the respondent
No. 2 – District Magistrate, Srinagar itself being active in
authoring the grounds of detention otherwise such an
6 7
HCP No. 96/2025 Page of

embarrassing error ought not to have occurred in the
grounds of detention which are meant for consumption of
reading of a detenu which in the present case is the
petitioner.

18. Cumulative effects of the aforesaid scenario is that
preventive detention Order No. DMS/PSA/17/2025 dated
03.05.2025 read with read with approval/confirmation/
extension orders passed by the respondent No. 1 are held to
be illegal and, accordingly, quashed.

19. 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.

20. Disposed of .

(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
29.06.2026
Opinder


Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No

Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No
7 7
HCP No. 96/2025 Page of