Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
Mohd. Saleem - Petitioners
Versus
UT of J&K & Ors. - Respondents
HCP No. 143 of 2025
Decided On : 09-04-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court reviews pleadings and records. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. detention based on dossier alleging anti-national activities. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. detention approved, confirmed, and extended multiple times. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. petitioner challenges detention as arbitrary; respondents justify. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. psa short-circuits unfinished bnss section 126 proceedings. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. satisfaction requires state security link, not criminality. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 7. detention quashed; immediate release ordered. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
ORDER :
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
1.Heard Mr. Sanchit Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2.Perused the respective side pleadings and the documents accompanying therewith and also the detention record produced from the end of Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned Government Advocate.
3. The petitioner, acting through his son, came to petition this Court on 07.10.2025 thereby seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for quashment of preventive detention custody slapped upon him under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978 by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kathua.
4. The petitioner came to be taken into preventive detention custody on 21.03.2025
5. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua, by virtue of a letter No. Prose/25/12226-29/DPOK dated 28.02.2025, had submitted a dossier to the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kathua thereby reporting the purported state of activities of the petitioner which were reckoned by the District Police to be prejudicial to the security of the State, particularly, in the District Kathua which warranted preventive detention of the petitioner in order to prevent him from carrying forward his alleged state of activities.
6. In said dossier, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua referred to the petitioner being a person involved in anti- social/anti-national activities having links with anti-national activities and agencies rendering him a great sympathizer of banned terrorist organizations to the extent of providing all possible help like transportation, internet, food and shelter and in the process becoming an over ground worker of unnamed terrorist organization.
7. Insofar as, actual adverse antecedents of the petitioner are concerned, the dossier refers to proceedings undertaken against the petitioner under section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 on three occasions being reproduced as under:
| S. No. | Preventive Action | Name of Police Station | Istghasa No/date |
| 1 | U/S 126 BNSS | Malhar | Istghasa No. 10/6-10 produced in the EMIC Lohai Malhar on 25.11.2024 |
| 2 | U/S 126 BNSS | Malhar | Istghasa No. 02/6-10 produced in the EMIC Lohai 02.01.2025 |
| 3 | U/S 126 BNSS | Malhar | Istghasa No. 04/6-10 produced in the EMIC Lohai Malhar on 05.01.2025 |
8. In addition, the Daily Dairy Report (DDR) of 31.12.2024 and 10.01.2025 of the Police Station, Malhar formulated the basis for the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua to reckon the petitioner amenable to suffer preventive detention custody under Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978.
9. In addition, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua has also made a purported reference to statements of four persons who are said to have come forward before the SHO Police Station, Malhar to serve a statement all recorded on 01.02.2025 thereby impressing upon the District Police to frame a dossier against the petitioner.
10. Acting upon said dossier, the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Kathua purportedly drew subjective satisfaction by formulating grounds of detention on the basis whereof felt persuaded to order preventive detention of the petitioner which resulted in passing of the detention order No. PSA/148 dated 13.03.2025 thereby holding that the petitioner’s remaining at large involves a greater risk to the security of the State rendering it necess
Preventive detention under PSA invalid if short-circuiting unconcluded BNSS section 126 proceedings without final orders; subjective satisfaction must tie to State security, not mere criminal/anti-na....
Preventive detention under PSA invalid as short-circuiting of uncompleted BNSS Section 126 proceedings; subjective satisfaction must link to state security prejudicial activities, not criminal/anti-n....
The detainment of an individual under preventive detention must adhere to due process and legality, and any serious lacuna in the execution of the detention warrant can render the detainment illegal.
Preventive detention under PSA invalid when based solely on unculminated BNSS preventive proceedings absent final orders, criminal antecedents or specific facts, rendering grounds vague smokescreen v....
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act must be justified by current threats to public order, not merely past criminal behavior.
Preventive detention must be justified by clear grounds and cannot serve punitive purposes; failure to differentiate factual basis renders detention illegal.
The distinction between law and order and public order is crucial in cases of preventive detention, and the impact on the community must be considered. The failure to respond to the petitioner's repr....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
