Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Suhail Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 5 August, 2026
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Serial No. 9
Regular Cause list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP 272/2025
Reserved on : 23.07.2026
Pronounced on : 05.08.2026
Uploaded on : 05.08.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Suhail Ahmad Bhat ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
alias Sahil Peer Aged 21 Years
S/O Late Ab. Majeed Bhat
R/O Khalpora, Marhama, Bijbehara,
Anantnag
Through his mother
Shameema Banoo, Aged 57 Years
W/O Late Abdul Majeed Bhat
R/O Khalpora, Marhama, Bijbehara,
Anantnag
Through: Mr. Mohammad Ashraf Malik, Adv
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K through
...Respondent(s)
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.,
Home Department Civil Secretariat
Srinagar/Jammu
2. District Magistrate, Anantnag
3. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Anantnag
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, the petitioner, Ms. Shameema Banoo- the
mother of the detenue, is assailing the order No.
17/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated 29.04.2025 [hereinafter for
short to be referred as “impugned order”], passed by
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Anantnag, whereby,
Suhail Ahmad Bhat @ Sahil Peer S/O Ab Majeed Bhat R/O
HCP 272/2025 Page 1 of 9
Khalpora Marhama Bijbehara, District Anantnag
[hereinafter for short to be referred as “detenue”] has been
detained under and in terms of the provisions of Jammu and
Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978, for acting in a manner
prejudicial to Security of the State/UT and lodged in District
Jail, Udhampur.
2. Before the grounds taken in support of the petition are
summarized, it would be advantageous to refer to the facts,
briefly, in the first instance.
Brief Facts:
3. A reliable source information was received by Police Station
Bijbehara in the year 2022 to the effect that the detenue,
along with his associates is working as an Over Ground
Worker (OGW) for militant organizations by providing
logistical support, including food, shelter and transportation
to terrorists, and by preparing hideouts in the orchards of
Marhama for their use. On the basis of the said information,
FIR No. 94/2022 under Sections 18, 19 and 39 of the ULAP
Act, came to be registered at Police Station Bijbehara
against the detenue. During the investigation, the detenue
was arrested on 12.06.2022 and was lodged in the Juvenile
Home, Srinagar, being minor, subsequently released on bail
by Juvenile Justice Board, Anantnag, in terms of the order
dated 22.08.2022.
HCP 272/2025 Page 2 of 9
4. The detaining authority has recorded that, after his release
from the Juvenile Home, the detenue remained under
surveillance of the security agencies and, according to the
reports received, he continued to maintain links with
terrorists and extend support to them. It has further been
alleged that the ordinary criminal law had failed to deter him
from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the
State/Union Territory and that his continued activities posed
a threat to public order and security.
5. The dossier further states that the detenue had developed an
anti-national ideology and was capable of influencing and
motivating local youth against the Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir and the Union of India. It was also
opined that there existed a real likelihood of his reverting to
similar activities if allowed to remain at liberty, thereby
necessitating his preventive detention.
6. Taking into consideration the police dossier, intelligence
reports, field inputs, the report of the Screening Committee,
and the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Anantnag, the detaining authority arrived at the
subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenue were
highly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir and that his preventive detention under
the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, was
necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the security of the State/Union Territory.
HCP 272/2025 Page 3 of 9
7. The petitioner has averred that the detenue was illegally
arrested by the police authorities on 29.04.2025 and was
thereafter taken to District Jail, Udhampur, where he was
informed that he had been detained under the provisions of
the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
8. Per contra, respondents appeared and filed the counter
affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner. It is stated in
the counter affidavit that the respondents while issuing the
impugned order have adhered to all the statutory and
constitutional requirements; the impugned order has been
passed after deriving subjective satisfaction; the grounds of
the detention and the other allied detention material has been
furnished to the detenu in lieu whereof the signature of the
detenu has been obtained; the detenue is an anti-national
element, is figuring adversely in police records; the
impugned order has been confirmed by the advisory board
also, the activities of the detenu were found to be prejudicial
to the security of the state and as such the detenu was
detained under the preventive detention in terms of the
impugned order; the representation filed by the mother of
the detenu has also been considered by the competent
authority and rejected being without merit.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
submissions and perused the detention record made
available.
HCP 272/2025 Page 4 of 9
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that
the order impugned is bad in law having been passed
without proper application of mind as the detenu has not
been linked with any of the alleged prejudicial activities
after his release on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board. He
also submits that the involvement of the detenu in case FIR
94/2022 on the basis whereof impugned detention order has
been passed is of the year 2022 and the impugned order has
been passed in the year 2025 much later in time. He submits
that the impugned order in this way has been passed on stale
grounds, the practice that is deprecated by the Hon’ble
Supreme court of India.
11. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents,
while defending the impugned order, submits that the
concerned agency after noticing the prejudicial activities of
the petitioner found it imperative to detain the detenu under
preventive law.
12. It appears that the respondents have in fact based their
opinion on the contents of the FIR No. 94/2022 and detained
the detenu under preventive detention. Therefore, the plea
taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
detention order in question has been passed on the basis of
stale grounds is well-founded. It also transpires from the
records that the detenu after his arrest has been bailed out by
the Juvenile Justice Board on 22.08.2022, the fact taken note
of by the respondents in their reply affidavit also and
HCP 272/2025 Page 5 of 9
subsequent to his release as such, no specific subversive
activity has been attributed to the detenu anywhere in the
records or in the reply affidavit. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that no subjective
satisfaction has been derived by the detaining authority as
regards the prejudicial activities of the detenu subsequent to
his release on bail carries substance.
13. The Apex Court, in case titled “Ameena Begum vs. State of
Telangana” reported as (2023) 9 SCC 587, has held that the
detention order cannot sustain if the same appears to have
been issued without deriving subjective satisfaction by the
detaining authority. It would be profitable to reproduce
paragraph No. 28 of the said judgment hereinbelow:
“28. In the circumstances of a given case, a
Constitutional Court when called upon to test the
legality of orders of preventive detention would be
entitled to examine whether
(i) the order is based on the requisite satisfaction, albeit
subjective, of the detaining authority, for, the absence
of such satisfaction as to the existence of a matter of
fact or law, upon which validity of the exercise of the
power is predicated, would be the sine qua non for the
exercise of the power not being satisfied;
(ii) in reaching such requisite satisfaction, the detaining
authority has applied its mind to all relevant
circumstances and the same is not based on material
extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute;
(iii) power has been exercised for achieving the purpose
for which it has been conferred, or exercised for an
improper purpose, not authorised by the statute, and is
therefore ultra vires;
HCP 272/2025 Page 6 of 9
(iv) the detaining authority has acted independently or
under the dictation of another body;
(v) the detaining authority, by reason of self-created
rules of policy or in any other manner not authorized
by the governing statute, has disabled itself from
applying its mind to the facts of each individual case;
(vi) the satisfaction of the detaining authority rests on
materials which are of rationally probative value, and
the detaining authority has given due regard to the
matters as per the statutory mandate;
(vii) the satisfaction has been arrived at bearing in mind
existence of a live and proximate link between the past
conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain
him or is based on material which is stale;
(viii) the ground(s) for reaching the requisite satisfaction
is/are such which an individual, with some degree of
rationality and prudence, would consider as connected
with the fact and relevant to the subject-matter of the
inquiry in respect whereof the satisfaction is to be
reached;
(ix) the grounds on which the order of preventive
detention rests are not vague but are precise, pertinent
and relevant which, with sufficient clarity, inform the
detenu the satisfaction for the detention, giving him the
opportunity to make a suitable representation; and
(x) the timelines, as provided under the law, have been
strictly adhered to.”
14. The Apex Court has come down heavily on the functionaries
of the State for issuing the detention orders on stale grounds
in case titled “Khaja Bilal Ahmad vs. State of Telangana“,
reported as (2020) 13 SCC 632, and has held as under:
“If the pending cases were not considered for
passing the order of detention, it defies logic as toHCP 272/2025 Page 7 of 9
why they were referred to in the first place in the
order of detention. The purpose of the Telangana
Offenders Act 1986 is to prevent any person from
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order. For this purpose, Section
3 prescribes that the detaining authority must be
satisfied that the person to be detained is likely to
indulge in illegal activities in the future and act in
a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. The satisfaction to be arrived at by the
detaining authority must not be based on
irrelevant or invalid grounds. It must be arrived at
on the basis of relevant material; material which is
not stale and has a live link with the satisfaction of
the detaining authority. The order of detention
may refer to the previous criminal antecedents
only if they have a direct nexus or link with the
immediate need to detain an individual. If the
previous criminal activities of the Appellant could
indicate his tendency or inclination to act in a
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order, then it may have a bearing on the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority. However, in
the absence of a clear indication of a causal
connection, a mere reference to the pending
criminal cases cannot account for the
requirements of Section 3. It is not open to the
detaining authority to simply refer to stale
incidents and hold them as the basis of an order of
detention. Such stale material will have no bearing
on the probability of the detenu engaging in
prejudicial activities in the future.” (bold in
original) (underlining ours, for emphasis) (2020)
13 SCC 632.”
15. The Division Bench of this court in a judgment delivered in
case titled “Suraj Masih vs. U.T. of J&K and Ors.” reported
as 2026:JKLHC-JMU:58-DB while relying on the judgment
of the Apex court in case titled “Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik
HCP 272/2025 Page 8 of 9
vs. State of Maharashtra” reported as (2012) 8 SCC 233,
has laid down the same ratio.
16. In view of above, the other grounds raised in the writ
petition or urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner
need not be adverted to as the petition has succeeded on the
above two cardinal principles of law already.
17. The instant petition, in the above background, succeeds and
is allowed as such. The impugned order bearing No.
17/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated 29.04.2025, passed by
respondent No. 2- District Magistrate Anantnag, is held to
be not in consonance in law, therefore quashed. The detenue,
Suhail Ahmad Bhat @ Sahil Peer S/O Ab Majeed Bhat R/O
Khalpora Marhama Bijbehara, District Anantnag, shall be
released from preventive custody forthwith.
18. The detention record be returned to learned counsel for the
respondents.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
05.08.2026
“Misba Sajad”
Whether the Judgment is Reportable?
Yes/No Whether the Judgment is Speaking?
Yes/NoHCP 272/2025 Page 9 of 9
