HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

HCP No.180/2025

Reserved on: 11.12.2025

Pronounced on: 16.12.2025 Uploaded on: 17.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced-Full Judgment

Bahar Nabi Mir

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Sameer Qayoom, Advocate.

Vs.

Union Territory of J&K & Ors.

…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner Bahar Nabi Mir S/O Ghulam Nabi Mir R/O

Ferozpora, Rafiabad, Watergam, Baramulla (for short ‘detenue’) through his father, has called in question the detention order No. 08/DMB/PSA/2025 dated 29.04.2025 ( for short ‘impugned order’) passed by the District Magistrate, Baramulla -Respondent No. 2 (for short ‘detaining authority’), whereby the detenue came to be detained under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public

Safety Act, 1978 (for short “the Act”).

2. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that he was arrested by the

police concerned on suspicion for few days and then was detained under the preventive custody in terms of the impugned order and

was shifted to District Jail, Udhampur. It is averred in the petition that the allegations made in the dossier are baseless and false without any proof. The allegation leveled in the dossier and the grounds of detention against the petitioner that he despite facing trial in the FIR No.185/2019 before the competent court, has been providing food and shelter and transportation to the terrorists, is false and baseless and is without any proof only to justify the preventive detention of the petitioner. Petitioner’s further contention is that he has no contact with any terrorist through any network and has never attempted to recruit local youth into terrorist networks and has never assisted any terrorist in carrying out any civilian killings in the Valley, same are baseless based on assumptions and in order to justify the preventive detention of the petitioner. Furthermore, the detention order and the grounds of detention suffer from lack of application of mind by the detaining authority in concluding that the petitioner’s activities are prejudicial to the security of the State/UT of J&K, therefore, the detention order requires to be quashed.

3. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit to the writ petition and resisted the same on the ground that the activities of the detenue were highly prejudicial to the security of the State/UT of J&K, therefore, to prevent him from acting in such activities, he has been detained strictly in accordance with the provisions of Public Safety Act. Respondents further averred that they have followed all the constitutional and statutory safeguards while passing the impugned order of detention. It is contended that the detenue has remained active in anti-national activities; that the contents of the warrant and grounds of detention were read over to the detenue in the language he understood, and was also informed of his right to make a representation to the Government against his detention. He has in token affixed his signatures on the documents. The grounds of detention are precise, relevant and disclose the need of the hour for detaining the petitioner-detenue.

4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides, perused the record and considered the same.

5. Perusal of grounds of detention reveals that on 25.11.2019 the petitioner was apprehended along-with two other associates of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) outfit while travelling in a white Maruti Alto- 800 vehicle. The petitioner was tasked to intimidate the individuals submitting recruitment applications for the Railways Security as Special Police Officers (SPOs) at Railway Station, Baramulla. That, acting on credible intelligence, the police intercepted his vehicle at Jahama crossing, Baramulla and arrested the petitioner and his associates. Upon physical search, two Chinese UBGL hand grenades were recovered from his possession and that of his associates. That, in consequence of this