MUSHTAQ AHMAD WANI vs UT THROUGH DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KASHMIR

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Serial No.4
Regular list

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

HCP 5/2026



MUSHTAQ AHMAD WANI, AGE 32
S/O LATE FAROOQ AHMAD WANI
R/O CHEWDARA BEERWAH BUDGAM
DISTRICT BUDGAM THROUGH WIFE NAMELY
ROHEENA AKHTER AGED 27

….. Appellant/petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr. Hussain Rashid, Advocate


V/s

UT OF J&K THROUGH DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KASHMIR
AT SRINGAR

….. Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr. Haris Khan, AC vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG


CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

(JUDGMENT)
10.09.2026

(ORAL)

01. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, for quashment of detention order
bearing No. Divcom-“K”/01/2026 dated 06.01.2026 and his
consequent release from the detention.
02. Background facts of the case are that on 10.12.2025, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Budgam—the Sponsoring Agency,
submitted a dossier and connected documents to the Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir—the detaining authority, alleging inter alia

______________________________________________________________________________
HCP No. 05/2026 Page 1 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

that petitioner a school dropout, transformed into a notorious drug
peddler of his area and was running an illegal trade of narcotics since
long time. He became the principal dealer of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic substances of his area, developed contacts with drug
peddlers operative in the area and started selling/dealing in drugs
among the youth, which has adverse impact on the younger
generation.
03. It is also allegation of the sponsoring agency that petitioner along with
his associates were apprehended by the Police in case FIR No.
29/2023, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act at Police Station, Beerwah
and at the time of arrest 909 Grams of Charas Powder and 04 sticks of
Charas weighing 79-Grams came to be recovered from his vehicle
(Load Carrier). He was bailed out by the competent Court. However,
violating the bail condition that he will not indulge in similar
activities, he clandestinely and discretely remained involved in such
activities, which according to the sponsoring agency could not be
agitated before the trial Court for cancellation of bail and it
necessitated his preventive detention.
04. According to the sponsoring agency, persistent involvement of the
petitioner in drug trafficking and his deliberate attempts to evade the
operation of normal criminal law, has made it imperative to detain
him under the PIT NDPS Act.
05. On receipt of the aforesaid dossier and connected documents, the
detaining authority has come to conclude that in order to prevent the
petitioner from committing any of the offences within the meaning of
PIT NDPS, it was necessary to detain him.

______________________________________________________________________________
HCP No. 05/2026 Page 2 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

06. Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order of detention as also the
grounds of detention inter alia on the grounds that there is absence of
live link between the past incidents attributed to him and the present
detention order. According to the petitioner, a mere apprehension of
breach of law and order is not sufficient to meet the standards of
adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. It is contention of
the petitioner that apprehension of an adverse impact to public order is
a mere surmise of the detaining authority especially when there have
been no reports of unrest.
07. It is further contention of the petitioner that there are no specific
allegations attributed to him and impugned order has been passed on
vague and generalized allegations, which is not permissible in law.
08. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that it was incumbent upon
the detaining authority to inform him of his independent right of
representation before the detaining authority besides having right of
representation before the Government and since it has not been done,
impugned order vitiates on this ground alone.
09. The plea has been opposed by the respondents primarily on the
ground that collective assessment of grounds of detention has led the
detaining authority to reach a subjective satisfaction for placing the
petitioner under preventive detention.
10. According to the respondents the order of detention came to be
executed by the concerned Police on 09.01.2026 and contents of
grounds of detention were read over and explained to the petitioner in
the language which he understood and he was also informed about his
right to file representation to the Government against the detention.

______________________________________________________________________________
HCP No. 05/2026 Page 3 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

The Advisory Board after being satisfied that there were sufficient
grounds for the detention of the petitioner, confirmed the detention
order in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (f) of Section 9
read with Section 11 of PIT NDPS Act. According to the respondents,
the impugned order is perfectly issued by the respondents in
accordance with the provisions of PIT NDPS. Respondents have
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the
detention record.
12. Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order, primarily on the ground
of vagueness and absence of “live and proximate link” between the
sole criminal activity attributed to him and the impugned order of
detention. According to the petitioner, since the grounds of detention
are vague in nature, it prevented him from making an effective
representation, as a result whereof his fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India came to be infringed.
13. The expressions “Public Order” and “Law and Order” operate in
different fields and have different connotations. If an activity
attributed to the detenue has the potentiality to disturb and affect the
public at large, it amounts to disturbance of “public order”, however,
if the criminal activity attributed to a person is prejudicial to a
particular individual or a member or members of the society, it falls
within the purview of “law and order” problem. In other words,
breach of law by an individual by indulging in a criminal activity or in
contravention of the provisions of a particular statute, may tantamount
to “law and order” problem, but it cannot be termed as disturbance of

______________________________________________________________________________
HCP No. 05/2026 Page 4 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

the “public order”, and it is trite in law that if ordinary law of the land
is competent to deal with criminal activities of an offender, resort to
the provisions of preventive detention laws are illegal.
14. It is allegation of the detaining authority that persistent involvement of
the petitioner in drug trafficking and his deliberate attempts to evade the
operation of normal criminal law, have made it imperative to detain him
under the PIT NDPS Act. It is also alleged that petitioner is an integral
and active member of a well-organized drug mafia that is relentlessly
engaged in Narcotics trafficking. His activities are not confined to the
vicinity of his residence but extend across the district and beyond the
wide operational reach of the syndicate of which he is a part.
15. On first blush, a plain reading of the grounds of detention would suggest
that petitioner being a member of drug mafia is a hard-core criminal,
involved in large-scale drug peddling and drug trafficking. The
impugned detention order and the grounds of detention however, are
conspicuously silent about the details as to the drug mafia of which the
petitioner is a member, who is running the drug mafia, whom the
petitioner has been selling the drugs, who has been influenced by the
petitioner and for how long the mafia has been operating. Interestingly,
the detaining authority has proceeded to detain the petitioner on the basis
of a solitary FIR, i.e., FIR No. 29/2023 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act in
which he has already been admitted to bail by the competent Court and
is undergoing trial. One fails to understand as to what prevents the
prosecution or the detaining authority to agitate before the trial Court for
cancellation of bail or the higher Court to assail the bail extended in
favour of the petitioner on the ground that he has violated the bail
condition that he will not indulge in similar activities.

______________________________________________________________________________
HCP No. 05/2026 Page 5 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

16. Liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed on mere ipse dixit of the
detaining authority. It appears that the grounds of detention furnished to
the petitioner in the present case are mere conclusions drawn by the
detaining authority based on some material received from the field
agency but without independent application of mind on his part.
Apprehension of law and order on mere surmises of the detaining
authority and omnibus allegations is not countenanced in law because it
is not sufficient to meet the standards of adversely affecting the
maintenance of public order.
17. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order of detention does not
sustain in the eyes of law. Hence present petition is allowed and
impugned order is quashed. Petitioner is directed to be immediately
released from the detention, provided he is not involved or required in
any other offence.
18. Detention record after perusal has been returned to learned counsel for
the respondents in the open Court.
19. Disposed of.


(RAJESH SEKHRI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
10.09.2026
“Mohammad Yasin Dar”

Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes

______________________________________________________________________________
HCP No. 05/2026 Page 6 of 6

Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document