SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1734

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
OWAIS MANZOOR GANIE – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME) – Respondent
HCP 166 / 2025



##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

HCP No. 166/2025

Reserved on: 04.12.2025

Pronounced on: 19.12.2025

Uploaded on : 20.12.2025

Owais Manzoor Ganie, Aged 19 Years, S/o Manzoor Ahmad Ganie R/o

Hermain Shopian, District Shopian through his father

……. Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocates

Versus

1. Union Territory of J&K through Pr incipal Secretary, Home Department ,

J&K Govt. Civil Sectt. Srinagar/Jammu

2. District Magistrate, Shopian

3. Sr. Superintendent of Police Shopian.

.…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy AG

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. Through the medium of this petition, Order no. 05/DMS/PSA of 2025

dated 29.04.2025 (impugned detention order) passed by District Magistrate,

Shopinan (for short „detailing authority‟) whereby detenu, namely, Owais

Manzoor Ganie, S/o Manzoor Ahmad Ganie R/o Hermain Shopian, District

Shopian has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him

from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, is sought to be

quashed and the detenu set at liberty on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities

indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the UT and,

therefore, his remaining at large is a threat to the security of UT of J&K. The

activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been reiterated in the reply

affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that detenu was not supplied

with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of detention have been refuted. It

is insisted that all the relevant material, which has been relied upon by the

detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have perused the detention record

produced by learned counsel for respondents and considered the matter.

1

HCP No. 166/2025

##PAGE2##

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu

was arrested in the year 2022 and taken into Police Station, Shopian where he was

detained illegally and thereafter implicated in a case FIR No. 214/2022 when he

was a juvenile, as such, the detenu was produced before the Juvenile Board

which after subjecting him to enquiry and assessment admitted him to bail in the

month of January, 2023. The detenu was again arrested in the month of April,

2025 and was taken into Police Station, Shopian wherefrom he was shifted to

Central Jail, Koth-bhalwal, Jammu to be detained in terms of impugned detention

order. It is further stated that the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention,

has not shown its awareness about the bail granted in 2023 nor has challenged the

same in the higher forum, inasmuch as FIR No.214/2022 has been taken into

account by detaining authority while passing order impugned, unmindful of the

fact that detenu has been bailed out in the said FIR in which he was also a

juvenile and there have been no further activities alleged against detenu.

Resultantly, impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

5. The law on the subject is settled. If detaining authority is apprehensive

that in case detenu is released on bail he may again carry on his criminal

activities, then in such situation, the authority should oppose the bail

application and, in the event, bail is granted, the authority should challenge

such a bail order in the higher forum and that merely on the ground that an

accused in detention is likely to get bail, an order of preventive detention

should not ordinarily be passed. Para 24 of judgment passed in Sama Aruna v.

State of Telangana and another, AIR 2017 SC 2662, reads as under:

“24. There is another reason why the detention order is unjustified. It was

passed when the accused was in jail in Crime No.221 of 2016. His

custody in jail for the said offence was converted into custody under the

impugned detention order. The incident involved in this offence is

sometime in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top