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

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 636

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
SHAKEEL AHMAD MAGLO – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF J AND K AND ANR. (HOME) – Respondent
HCP 221 / 2025



##PAGE1##

P age | 1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

HCP No. 221/2025

Reserved on: 07.05.2026

Pronounced on: 13.05.2026

Uploaded on: 14.05.2026

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced- Full

Shakeel Ahmad Maglo

S/O Abdul Gani Maglo,

R/O Batamurran Wanpora,

Keller, District Shopian.

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Adv. Zahid Hussain Dar.

Vs.

1. Union Territory of J&K through

Principal Secretary to Govt.,

Home Department,

Civil Sectt. Srinagar.

2. District Magistrate, Shopian.

…Respondent(s)

Through: Dy.AG Bikramdeep Singh.

CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner seeks

quashment of Detention Order No. 07/DMS/PSA of 2025 dated

01.05.2025 passed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Shopian,

under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act,

1978, whereby the detenue has been placed under preventive

##PAGE2##

P age | 2

detention to deter him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the

‘security of UT of J&K’.

2. On perusal of the grounds of detention, it transpires that the detenue

was involved in antinational activities, which are highly prejudicial

to the sovereignty of the State and peace of the district; that the

detenue is in contact with active terrorists and is working as an

OGW for them which succinctly described his abnormal behaviour

and prejudicial nature towards peace and stability in the district; that

the detenue was previously involved in case registered as FIR

No.62/2020 under sections 307 IPC, 7/27 IA Act, 16, 18, 19, 20

UL(P)A of Police Station Shopian; that the deneue was released on

bail in the said FIR by the competent court of law; that thereafter the

petitioner was kept under surveillance and the secret information

received from intelligence agencies revealed that the petitioner was

continuously working as OGW of the terrorists; that the activities of

the petitioner were found highly prejudicial to the security of UT of

J&K, as such, in order to prevent him from indulging in similar

activities it has become imperative to detain him under the

provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

1. The main grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner are

that the allegations forming basis of detention are general, vague and

bereft of material particulars; that the detenue had already been

granted bail by the competent criminal court and the said bail order

was never challenged by the respondents before any superior forum;

that the detaining authority has failed to record any compelling

reason showing that the ordinary law of the land was insufficient to

##PAGE3##

P age | 3

deal with the detenue; that the grounds of detention are nothing but a

verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, demonstrating complete

non-application of mind by the detaining authority.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that preventive detention

being an exception to a cherished right to personal liberty guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the procedural

safeguards provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the

Public Safety Act are required to be strictly complied with. It is

argued that the detention order cannot sustain, once the record

demonstrates mechanical exercise of power and absence of genuine

subjective satisfaction.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has

supported the detention order and submitted that the activities of the

detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of security of UT of

J&K and, therefore, the detaining authority was justified in passing

the impugned order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record

produced by the respondents and considered the same.

5. A perusal of grounds of detention reveals that the allegations leveled

against the detenue except his involvement in case FIR No.62/2020

registered at Police Station Shopian, are couched in general and

vague expressions without specifying precise particulars regarding

dates, places and overt acts attributable to th

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