BAHAAR NABI MIR vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME)

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

Case No: LPA No.328/2025
Reserved on: 01.04.2026
Pronounced on: 14.05.2026
Uploaded on: 14.05.2026

Whether the operative part or full
Judgment is pronounced :Full

Bahaar Nabi Mir, aged 28 years
S/O Ghulam Nabi Bahaar,
R/O Ferozpora Rafiabad,
Tehsil Watergam, District Baramulla
through His father Ghulam Nabi Mir,
aged 55 years, S/O Ghulam Hassan
Mir, R/O Ferozpora Rafiabad,
Tehsil Watergram, District Baramulla.



…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Mir Umar, Advocate.


v/s


1 . Union Territory of J&K
through Principal Secretary to
Government, Home Departmen
Civil Secretariat
Jammu/Srinagar.
2 . District Magistrate, Baramulla.
3 . Superintendent,
District Jail, Udhampur, J&K.


Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG


CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.




JUDGMENT


PER OSWAL-J





1. The appellant was detained pursuant to an Order No.08/DMB/ PSA/
2025 dated 29.04.2025 , issued by respondent No.2-District

LPA No. 328/2025 Page 1 of 9

Magistrate, Baramulla, under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” ). The
said detention order was challenged by the appellant through HCP No.
180/2025 , titled “ Bahar Nabi Mir Vs. Union Territory of J&K and
Others” . However, the appellant remained unsuccessful, as the
Habeas Corpus Petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed by
the learned writ Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2025 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’).
2. Being aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2025, the
appellant has assailed the same, inter alia , on the following grounds:-
(i) That learned writ Court has failed to properly appreciate and
consider the grounds of challenge to the order of detention
raised in the writ petition.
(ii) That the detention order dated 29.04.2025 has been issued
solely on the basis of FIR No. 185/2019, which was registered
nearly five years prior to the issuance of the detention order in
which the appellant has already been granted bail on
13.06.2020, and no fresh illegal activity has been attributed to
the appellant thereafter up to the date of the detention order.
This clearly establishes the absence of any “live and proximate
link” between the alleged past conduct and the purported threat
to the security of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
Consequently, the detention order is rendered arbitrary,
unsustainable, and liable to be set aside in law.
(iii) That the appellant submitted a detailed representation dated
16.05.2025; however, the same was considered only on

LPA No. 328/2025 Page 2 of 9

01.09.2025 and thereafter rejected. The inordinate and
unexplained delay of approximately three months and fifteen
days in considering and deciding the representation is violative
of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under law. Such
delay vitiates the impugned order of detention and renders it
illegal and unsustainable.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, in the grounds of
detention, no illegal activity has been attributed to the appellant after
he was enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court in FIR No.
185/2019 and, in the absence of any such subsequent activity, the
appellant could not have been detained under the Act. It is further
contended that, in the reply affidavit, the respondents have admitted
that the representation dated 16.05.2025 was considered and decided
vide order dated 01.09.2025, and the same was duly communicated to
the appellant.
4. Per contra , Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, learned Dy.AG, submitted that the
order of detention was passed after due consideration of the activities
of the appellant, which were found to be prejudicial to the security of
the State, and the whole of material relied upon by the detaining
authority was provided to the appellant against proper receipt and the
representation submitted by the father of the appellant was considered
and decided by the Government and the decision thereupon was also
communicated to the appellant. It is further submitted that all the
procedural as well as constitutional safeguards were strictly followed
and complied with at the time of issuance as well as execution of the
detention order. Learned Dy.AG further contended that the learned

LPA No. 328/2025 Page 3 of 9

writ Court has rightly appreciated and adjudicated the controversy
involved; therefore, this appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to
be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
6. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the order of
detention is founded on vague grounds and that the grounds, if any,
relied upon for detaining the appellant are stale in nature.
7. A bare perusal of the detention record reveals that respondent No.2, in
terms of dossier dated 28.04.2025 submitted by respondent No.3,
framed the grounds of detention, in which reference has been made to
FIR No.185/2019 under Sections 7/25 Arms Act, Section 23, 39
UA(P) Act of Police Station Baramulla. The reference has also been
made to two complaints filed under Section 107/151 Cr.PC dated
14.08.2023 and 30.03.2024 wherein it is stated that the appellant was
released on personal bail bond. The appellant in ground (v) of the writ
petition has specifically pleaded that he was never detained under
preventive detention under BNSS or Cr.P.C. The respondents, in their
reply, have not replied this contention of the appellant. The detention
record further reveals that the detention warrant was executed on
03.05.2025. The receipt of the grounds of detention further reveals
that the appellant was provided with copy of warrant (01 leaf), Notice
of detention to the detenu (01 leaf), Grounds of detention (05 leaves),
Copy of dossier (05 leaves), Copy of FIRs/Statement of witnesses and
other relevant documents relating to detention (26 leaves), total (38
leaves).

LPA No. 328/2025 Page 4 of 9

8. A perusal of the complaint dated 30.03.2024 reveals that the
allegations leveled in the said compliant against the appellant were
that in the forthcoming Lok Sabha election, the appellant may indulge
in illegal activities so as to sabotage the election. In the grounds of
detention, no illegal activity is attributed to the appellant after
registration of FIR 185 of 2019 except two complaints under Sections
107/151 Cr.P.C dated 14.08.2023 and 30.03.2024 in which the
appellant was released on personal bail bond. The only allegation
against the appellant is that he has engaged in encrypted
communications with certain Over Ground Workers, stated to be
active in District Sopore and that his conduct poses a significant threat
to the peaceful and secure culmination of Shri Amarnath Yatra-2025.
However, the respondents have failed to disclose the particulars or
identities of the said Over Ground Workers or terrorists with whom he
was allegedly associated. In the absence of such material particulars, it
appears that the appellant has been detained merely to ensure the
peaceful and secure culmination of Shri Amarnath Yatra-2025, rather
than on the basis of any concrete or proximate incriminating activity
attributable to him. In such view of the matter, when no illegal activity
has been attributed to the appellant even after the alleged furnishing of
bail bonds pursuant to the complaint under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C.
dated 30.03.2024, the appellant could not have been detained on the
basis of such vague grounds.
9. While the dossier and the grounds of detention assert that the
appellant continued to engage in activities warranting detention

LPA No. 328/2025 Page 5 of 9

following his release; these claims lack specific particulars. The
allegations are entirely bald and vague, merely stating that the
appellant remained in contact with ‘over ground workers’ without
disclosing their identities. Furthermore, no material has been placed
on record to substantiate these claims. Significantly, respondent No. 2
has failed to specify even a single illegal activity attributable to the
appellant during the relevant period. Consequently, the impugned
detention order is not only founded on vague and unsubstantiated
grounds, but also reflects a clear case of non-application of mind on
the part of the detaining authority.
10. It is a well-settled principle of law that preventive detention cannot be
sustained on the basis of stale, vague, or indefinite allegations. The
detaining authority is under a mandated constitutional obligation to
furnish clear, precise, and proximate grounds. This requirement is a
prerequisite to enabling the detenu to exercise his/her right to make an
'effective representation,' a fundamental safeguard guaranteed under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon the
judgment of the Supreme court in “ Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan
V. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and another”, (1989) 3 SCC
590 , wherein it has been held that the order of detention passed on
vague grounds deprives the petitioner of his right to make an effective
representation against the order of detention.
11. In case titled ‘Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik vs. State of
Maharashtra’ (2012) 8 SCC 233, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under:

LPA No. 328/2025 Page 6 of 9

“27. As regards the second contention, as rightly pointed out by
learned counsel for the appellant, the delay in passing the
detention order, namely, after 15 months vitiates the detention
itself. The question whether the prejudicial activities of a person
necessitating to pass an order of detention is proximate to the
time when the order is made or the live-link between the
prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though
there is no hard and fast rule and no exhaustive guidelines can
be laid down in that behalf, however, when there is undue and
long delay between the prejudicial activities and the passing of
detention order, it is incumbent on the part of the court to
scrutinize whether the Detaining Authority has satisfactorily
examined such a delay and afforded a reasonable and acceptable
explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned.
28. It is also the duty of the court to investigate whether casual
connection has been broken in the circumstance of each case.
We are satisfied that in the absence of proper explanation for a
period of 15 months in issuing the order of detention, the same
has to be set aside. Since, we are in agreement with the
contentions relating to delay in passing the Detention Order and
serving the same on detenue, there is no need to go into the
factual details.”

12. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid legal principles, the
impugned detention order, being founded on vague, stale, and
unsupported material, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that a
detailed representation had been submitted by the father of the
appellant; however, there was an inordinate delay in its consideration.
It was further submitted that, by way of a rejoinder, a specific ground
highlighting a delay of about four months in deciding the
representation was raised, yet the same was not adverted to or
considered by the learned writ Court. This omission vitiates the
impugned judgment and warrants interference by this Court.
14. After examining the detention record, it emerges that the
representation dated 16.05.2025 was submitted by the father of the
appellant and was considered and decided only vide order dated
01.09.2025. There is thus a delay of more than three months in

LPA No. 328/2025 Page 7 of 9

considering the said representation. Such inordinate and unexplained
delay in consideration of the representation vitiates the impugned
order of detention, rendering the same illegal and unsustainable in the
eyes of law.
15. In this context, it would be apposite to take note of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs.
District Magistrate, Jabalpur and others , (2021) 20 SCC 98, wherein
the Supreme Court considered the legal effect of delay in deciding a
detenu’s representation, as well as the failure to communicate the
decision to the detenu, on the validity of the order of detention. The
governing principle has been succinctly laid down in paragraph 47 of
the said judgment. The relevant extract reads as under:
“47. By delaying its decision on the representation, the
State Government deprived the detenu of the valuable
right which emanates from the provisions of Section
8(1) of having the representation being considered
expeditiously. As we have noted earlier, the
communication of the grounds of detention to the
detenu “as soon as may be” and the affording to the
detenu of the earliest opportunity of making a
representation against the order of detention to the
appropriate government are intended to ensure that the
representation of the detenu is considered by the
appropriate government with a sense of immediacy.
The State Government failed to do so. The making of a
reference to the Advisory Board could not have
furnished any justification for the State Government
not to deal with the representation independently at the
earliest. The delay by the State Government in
disposing of the representation and by the Central and
State Governments in communicating such rejection,
strikes at the heart of the procedural rights and
guarantees granted to the detenu. It is necessary to
understand that the law provides for such procedural
safeguards to balance the wide powers granted to the
executive under the NSA. The State Government
cannot expect this Court to uphold its powers of
subjective satisfaction to detain a person, while
violating the procedural guarantees of the detenu that
are fundamental to the laws of preventive detention
enshrined in the Constitution.”

LPA No. 328/2025 Page 8 of 9

16. We have carefully examined the judgment rendered by the learned
writ Court and are of the considered view that the issues noticed and
discussed hereinabove have not been adequately addressed and, in
fact, have escaped the attention of the learned writ Court.
17. In light of the above, we are of the considered view that the judgment
impugned dated 16.12.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
accordingly, the same is set aside. Resultantly, order of detention
bearing Order No. 08/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29.04.2025 , issued by
the District Magistrate, Baramulla (respondent No. 2) under Section 8
of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 , being
unsustainable in law is, accordingly, quashed. The appellant shall be
released forthwith , if not required in connection with any other case.
18. The record be returned to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
19. Disposed of as above.
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Srinagar
14.05.2026
Madan Verma-Secy


Whether order is speaking? Yes
Whether order is reportable ? No.


LPA No. 328/2025 Page 9 of 9