BASHIR AHMAD BEIGH vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME DEPARTMENT)

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 16.04.2026
Pronounced on:08.05.2026
Uploaded on: 08.05.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced:
Full
HCP No.272/2024
BASHIR AHMAD BEIGH
...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)
Through:
-
Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
Through:
-
Mr.
Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The petitioner, through the medium of the petition at
hand, has impugned order of bearing No.36/DMB/PSA/
2024 dated 15.07.2024, issued by District Magistrate,
Baramulla, placing the detenue, namely, Bashir Ahmad Beigh
under preventive detention in order to prevent him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
security of UT of J&K.
2) In the petition, it has been contended that that the
allegations/the grounds of detention are vague and mere
assertions, on the basis of which no prudent man can make
an effective representation. It has been contended that these

P a g e | 2

allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no
nexus with the detenue and that the same have been
fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of
detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the
procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the
instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed
basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied
to the petitioner. It has been further contended that
previously the petitioner was placed under preventive
detention pursuant to detention order No.111/DMB/PSA/
2020 dated 21.10.2020 which was quashed by this Court in
WP(Crl) No.171/2020 and the same was allowed by virtue of
judgment dated 07.12.2021. It has been contended that
without there being any fresh activities attributable to the
petitioner, the impugned order has been issued on the
identical grounds. It has also been contended that the alleged
fresh activities attributed to the detenue are vague lacking in
material particulars, on the basis of which the petitioner
could not make an effective representation against the
impugned order of detention.
3) The respondents have contested the petition by filing
their reply affidavit, wherein it has been contended that the
activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the
maintenance of security of the State. It has been contended
that the petitioner is involved in multiple FIRs and he has

P a g e | 3

been at the forefront of implementing the agenda of
subversive and anti-national organizations. It has been
contended that after the release of petitioner from preventive
detention, he was again found involved in the prejudicial
activities resulting in issuance of impugned detention order;
that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining
authority has been furnished to the detenue and contents of
the same were read over and explained to him; that the
detenue was informed that he can make a representation to
the government as well as to the detaining authority against
his detention. It is further contended in the reply affidavit that
all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees
have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining
authority and that the impugned order has been issued
strictly in accordance with law. The respondents have
produced the detention record to lend support to the stand
taken in the counter affidavit.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the cases including the detention record.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking
quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds
but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on
the ground that the grounds of detention are vague and

P a g e | 4

cryptic, which prevented him from making an effective
representation against his detention.
6) Upon perusal of the detention record produced by
learned counsel for the respondents, the ground projected
regarding vagueness of the averments made in the grounds of
detention, appears to be forceful. In the grounds of detention,
it is mentioned that after the release of the petitioner from
preventive detention upon, he tried to revive the terror
ecosystem but was arrested by Police Station, Chandoosa in
a pending case of 2020, in which he was admitted to bail by
the court of competent jurisdiction. It is also mentioned in the
grounds of detention that there is a well-founded
apprehension that the detenue will misuse his liberty by
indulging in the terrorist network. On this basis, the
detaining authority has drawn satisfaction that if the
petitioner is not taken into preventive custody, he may
become a potential threat to the maintenance of security of
the UT of J&K. The question that arises for determination is
as to whether it was open to the detaining authority to pass
the impugned order of detention only on the basis of the past
conduct of the petitioner without there being mention of any
specific fresh activity after the release of petitioner from
preventive custody.

P a g e | 5

7) The Supreme Court has, in the case of Rameshwar
Shaw vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan & anr. ( AIR 1964 SC
334), held that in deciding the question as to whether it is
necessary to detain the person, the detaining authority has to
be satisfied that if such person is not detained, he may act in
a prejudicial manner. This conclusion can be drawn by the
detaining authority in the light of the evidence placed against
the said person which has to be examined by the detaining
authority and an independent decision thereon has to be
taken.
8) Thus, while past conduct of a detenue has to be taken
into account while drawing an inference whether such person
is likely to act in a manner prejudicial either to maintenance
of public order or security of the State, but such conduct of
the detenue should have a proximate link to the date of
passing of the order of detention and the detaining authority
has to draw a satisfaction that there are compelling reasons
for passing a detention order against such person.
9) In the grounds of detention, no reference has been made
to any specific incident involving the petitioner after his
release from preventive detention in the year 2022. Thus, the
gap between the previous incident, in which the petitioner
was found to be involved, and the date of passing of the
impugned order of detention is far too large to presume a

P a g e | 6

connection between the two. The detaining authority has not
mentioned as to in which prejudicial activities the petitioner
has indulged either after his release on bail or after the
quashment of earlier detention order. Merely making
reference to involvement of the petitioner in past activities
without specifically indicating anything about his
involvement in fresh activities prejudicial either to the
maintenance of public order or security of the State/UT which
necessitated his preventive detention under Public Safety Act
in terms of the impugned order, it could not have formed a
compelling reason for the detaining authority to pass the
impugned order of detention. Therefore, it cannot be stated
that the respondents were justified in passing the impugned
order of detention.
10)
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is
directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith
provided he is not required in connection with any other case.
11) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel
for the respondents.

(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
08.05.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes/No