Examiner Bureau | Srinagar:
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Srinagar man under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that the grounds relied upon by the authorities were vague and lacked sufficient factual material. The court directed his immediate release from jail.
Justice Rahul Bharti passed the judgment on August 27, 2026, in a petition filed by Altaf Ahmad Dar alias Altaf Sahil, challenging Detention Order No. DMS/PSA/41/2025, dated September 30, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar.
The court also quashed the subsequent approval, confirmation and extension orders and directed the Superintendent of the concerned jail to restore Dar’s personal liberty.
The petition, HCP No. 326/2025, was filed on November 11, 2025, through Dar’s wife, Razia Sultan, while he was lodged in District Jail, Poonch. He was represented before the court by advocate Nida Nazir, while the respondents were represented by Maha Majeed, assisting counsel for Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin S. Qadri.
According to the judgment, the case arose from a dossier prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, and forwarded to the District Magistrate on September 1, 2025. The dossier alleged that Dar, a degree holder in music and fine arts, had been influenced by radical ideology and had come into contact with members and associates of Lashkar-e-Taiba/TRF. It also alleged that he had provided logistical support, food and shelter to militants.
The dossier referred to Dar’s alleged activities in the Barthana-Qamarwari area and his interaction with Mehraj-ud-Din alias Jan Peer, described by the authorities as an Islamic preacher and former militant. It further alleged that Dar and his associates were apprehended during a joint operation in June 2022 and that photographs recovered from his residence and mobile phone showed militants preparing food and staying at his house.
The authorities also relied on FIR No. 127/2022 registered at Police Station Parimpora, proceedings for good behaviour initiated in February and April 2025, and a Patrol Book Report dated July 27, 2025.
Based on the dossier, the District Magistrate issued the detention order on September 30, 2025, and Dar was detained on October 4 and lodged in District Jail, Poonch. The government approved the detention on October 8, 2025, following which the matter was placed before the Advisory Board.
The Advisory Board, in its opinion dated November 3, 2025, found sufficient grounds for preventive detention. The government subsequently confirmed the detention through Government Order No. Home/PB-V/2115 of 2025, dated November 14, 2025, initially for six months from October 4, 2025, to April 3, 2026. The detention was later extended and was stated to continue until September 3, 2027.
Before the High Court, Dar challenged the detention on several grounds, including that the material relied upon by the detaining authority had not been properly supplied to him. He specifically alleged that the beat book reports referred to in the detention grounds had not been furnished and that material relating to FIR No. 127/2022, including the final investigation report, had not been provided, preventing him from making an effective representation.
He also argued that the allegations lacked specific dates, places and other factual particulars and were therefore vague.
The respondents defended the detention, maintaining that Dar and his associates had been apprehended during a joint operation on June 12, 2022. They also stated that Dar had allegedly admitted that militants had been staying at his house since November 2021. The FIR invoked Sections 153-A, 153-B and 505 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The High Court, however, found a significant deficiency in the material placed before it. The court noted that neither the grounds of detention nor the respondents’ counter-affidavit disclosed the eventual outcome of FIR No. 127/2022, including whether a chargesheet or closure report had been filed and what the status of the criminal proceedings was.
Justice Bharti observed that the absence of such information raised serious questions about the quality of the material used by the SSP, Srinagar, to prepare the preventive detention dossier. The court also noted that the District Magistrate had not sought further information from the SSP regarding the outcome of the FIR despite relying heavily on it in the dossier.
The court further held that once the reference to FIR No. 127/2022 was excluded, the remaining material did not establish concrete facts showing that Dar had breached the conditions of bonds executed by him in February and April 2025 so as to warrant preventive detention.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vakil Singh vs State of J&K and Another, the High Court noted that the grounds of preventive detention must contain factual conclusions along with the material on which those conclusions are based.
Justice Bharti concluded that the grounds relied upon in Dar’s case did not meet that requirement and held that the preventive detention was “seriously flawed” as it was based on vague grounds.
The court accordingly quashed Detention Order DMS/PSA/41/2025 dated September 30, 2025, along with the subsequent approval, confirmation and extension orders.
It directed that Dar be restored to his personal liberty and ordered the Superintendent of the concerned jail to release him forthwith. The petition was subsequently disposed of.
