Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Through His Father vs Principal Secretary To Govt on 28 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH 2026:JKLHC-SGR:246
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No. 258/2025
Reserved on: 23.07.2026
Pronounced on: 28.07.2026
Uploaded on: 28.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Sakib Akbar Waza, Age: 25 Years
S/o Mohammad Akbar Waza,
R/o Gulshanpora, Tral, District Pulwama
Through his Father ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Mohammad Akbar Waza, Age 58 years.
Through: Mr. Sheikh Aamir Mushtaq, Adv.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of JK Th.
Principal Secretary to Govt. ...Respondent(s)
Home Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar.
2. District Magistrate, Pulwama.
3. Superintendent,
District Jail, Kathua.
Through: Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has challenged the detention order No.
16/DMP/PSA/25 dated 1 May 2025 passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama
(for short “detaining authority”) under the Jammu and Kashmir Public
Safety Act, 1978 (for short “Act of 1978”), whereby petitioner-Sakib Akbar
Waza, (for short “the detenu”) has been ordered to be detained with a view
to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of
the State. The detenu has been lodged in District Jail, Kathua.
2. The principal grounds of challenge are that the detention order suffers
from non-application of mind inasmuch as the detaining authority has relied
HCP No. 258/2025 Page 1 of 7
solely upon the Dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police,
2026:JKLHC-SGR:246
Pulwama; that the detention order, grounds of detention and the material
documents forming the basis of the detention order were not supplied to the
detenu, thereby depriving him of the valuable right to make an effective
representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; that the
grounds of detention are vague, uncertain, indefinite and ambiguous; that the
detention order and ground were neither explained nor supplied in
Urdu/Kashmiri, the language understood by the detenu nor were translated
copies furnished; that the reasoning that normal criminal law is insufficient
is not a legally recognized ground; that the detaining authority overlooked
the fact that the detenu had been enlarged on bail in the FIRs forming the
foundation of the detention; and that the procedural safeguards mandated
under Article 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution and the Act of 1978 stand
violated.
3. The respondents have filed a detailed reply affidavit asserting that no
legal, fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner has been infringed and
that all constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(5) and the
Act of 1978 have been duly complied with. It is specifically contended that
the detention order, grounds of detention and entire supporting material were
furnished to the detenu within the statutory period. It is also averred that
contents were read over and explained to him in the language understood by
him; that the detenu has signed the execution report, acknowledging receipt;
and that he was duly informed of his right to make a representation. It is
further contended that the detaining authority has applied its independent
mind and arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction that preventive
detention was necessary to prevent activities prejudicial to the security of the
HCP No. 258/2025 Page 2 of 7
State. The grounds, it asserted are precise, proximate and relevant and there
2026:JKLHC-SGR:246
is neither vagueness nor staleness, rather the detaining authority stated to
have drawn its satisfaction on compelling reasons of security scenario in the
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record.
5. The petitioner’s challenge rests primarily on two limbs: first, that the
detaining authority failed to provide the relevant material, thereby, violated
the right to make an effective representation; and second, that the detenu was
not communicated the grounds in a language he understands, resulting in
complete non-compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the Act
of 1978.
6. A careful examination of the detention record reveals that the
detention order was passed on 1 May 2025 by the District Magistrate,
Pulwama. On the same day, the detenu was communicated the grounds of
detention in terms of Section 13 of the Act of 1978 and was informed of his
right to make a representation. While executing the order, the executing
Police Officer obtained the signature of the detenu on the execution report
dated 03 May 2025. The report specifically records that the detenu was
provided all relevant documents comprising the detention order, the letter
addressed to him, the grounds of detention and other supporting material
altogether 46 leaves, against a proper receipt. The execution report further
records that the contents of the detention warrant, the grounds of detention
and all other documents comprising of 46 leaves have been read over to the
detenu in Kashmiri also. A certificate issued by the executing Police officer
and attested by two witnesses categorically states that the warrant of
detention was executed on 3 May 2025, that the detenu was lodged in
HCP No. 258/2025 Page 3 of 7
District jail, Kathua and that the detention warrant and grounds of detention
2026:JKLHC-SGR:246
were read over and explained to him in the language he fully understands
i.e., Kashmiri/Urdu. The certificate also records that translated copies of the
grounds of detention and police Dossier were supplied to the detenu, who
acknowledged receipt in writing.
7. The record also contains the receipt of the grounds of detention duly
signed by the detenu. On reference to the Advisory Board, the detention was
confirmed after the Board derived satisfaction from the material placed
before it. The Advisory Board specifically noted that the detention was well
founded and in conformity with the principles as enshrined under Article
22(5) of the Constitution and the provisions of the Act of 1978. Pursuant to
the confirmation by the Advisory Board, the Government, in exercise of
provisions under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1978, confirmed the impugned
detention order.
8. Turning to the grounds of detention, it is seen that the detaining
authority drew its subjective satisfaction on the basis of material placed
before it by the SSP Awantipora. The material discloses that the detenu was
earlier arrested in FIR No. 153/2020 arising out of an anti-militancy
operation in which one militant was killed; he was later enlarged on bail. He
was again found involved in FIR No. 24/2021, relating to an encounter in
which two terrorists of Ansar Gazwat-ul-Hind were killed and huge cache of
arms and ammunition was recovered, leading to his arrest.
9. Despite these cases, the detenu continued to indulge in subversive
activities including dissemination of anti-national sentiments, sharing of
information regarding movement of security forces/police, and providing
logistic support including, food, shelter, clothing and transport to JeM
HCP No. 258/2025 Page 4 of 7
terrorists. The detenu was repeatedly taken into preventive custody under
2026:JKLHC-SGR:246
Section 107/151 CrPC and 126 BNSS in the year 2023, four times in the
year 2024, and lastly on 11 January 2025 and 5 April 2025; on each occasion
he was released on bonds to keep the peace and be of good behavior. The
material further indicates continuous allegiance of the detenu to the banned
terrorist organizations HeM and LeT and his continued involvement in
secessionist activities, including hatching conspiracy to carry out attacks of
the nature of recent in Pahalgam incident in which 26 innocent lives were
brutally snatched and scores were injured. In the circumstances, the
authorities were left with no option but to resort to preventive detention so as
to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of
the State.
10. From the above factual narration emerging from rival pleadings and
the detention record, there remains no iota of doubt that the petitioner was
provided all the relevant material on the basis of which the detaining
authority arrived at its subjective satisfaction. It is equally well documented
that the material was supplied in the vernacular language understood by the
detenu together with translated versions. The contention that the detenu was
deprived of the safeguards under Article 21, 22(5) of the Constitution and
the statutory rights under the Act of 1978 is, therefore, wholly misconceived
and unworthy of acceptance.
11. Insofar as the contention that once normal criminal law is sufficient,
there is no occasion for preventive detention is concerned, the same is liable
to be rejected at the threshold. In Sasti alias Satish Chowdhary vs. State of
West Bengal (1972) 3 SCC 826, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is
always open to the detaining authority to pass an order of detention if the
HCP No. 258/2025 Page 5 of 7
grounds are germane to the object for which a detention order can legally be
2026:JKLHC-SGR:246
made, and that the mere fact that the particular act of the detenu constitutes
an offence under the penal law does not prevent the detaining authority from
passing an order for detention instead of proceeding against him in a court of
law. Relying upon Mohd Salim Khan vs. Shri C.C. Bose & Anr. AIR
1972 SC 1670, the court further observed that the mere fact that a detenu
was discharged in a criminal case relating to an incident does not render a
detention order based on that incident incompetent, nor does it lead to an
inference that the order is without basis or is mala fide.
12. The scope of preventive detention was authoritatively explained in
Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 198,
Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:
“32. The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different
from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a
precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may
or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It
does not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts
for which prosecution may be launched or may have been
launched. An order of preventive detention, may be made before
or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be
made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after
discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no
bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive
detention is also not a bar to prosecution.
13. Thus, preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in
reasonable anticipation and need not necessarily relate to any offence. Once
it is found that immediately events lead to passing of orders under Section
107/151 CrPC and 126 BNSS, provide a live and proximate link with
activities prejudicial to the security of the State, the same furnishes a
reasonable basis for resorting to preventive detention. The order under
HCP No. 258/2025 Page 6 of 7
Section 126 of BNSS passed immediately prior to the impugned detention
2026:JKLHC-SGR:246
order further supplies a live and proximate material for the preventive
detention of the petitioner.
14. A conspectus of the record reveals that the detaining authority has
derived its subjective satisfaction on cogent and relevant material placed
before it. The grounds of detention are specific, proximate and bear a live
link with the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu. There is no
procedural infirmity in the service of documents, consideration of
representation, or the proceedings before the Advisory Board.
15. It is well settled that in preventive detention, the Constitutional Courts
do not sit as an Appellate Authority. Once it is found that the order is based
on relevant material and the procedural requirements have been satisfied, the
court would not substitute its own opinion for that of the detaining authority.
In the absence of any violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, no
ground for quashing the detention order is made out.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is found to be devoid of any
merit and is, accordingly dismissed. The impugned detention order is
upheld.
17. The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the
respondents.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
28.07.2026
AltafWhether approved for reporting? Yes/No
HCP No. 258/2025 Page 7 of 7
