Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Shakir Nazir Malla vs Ut Of J&K Through Commissioner on 9 March, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT
SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 26.02.2026
Pronounced on: 09.03.2026
Uploaded on: 09.03.2026
Whether operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
CJ Court
LPA No.62/2025 in [HCP 152/2024]
Shakir Nazir Malla, aged 24 years
S/o Nazir Ahmad Malla
R/o Narwani Tehsil Barbugh District Shopian,
Jammu & Kashmir, through his father, namely:
Nazir Ahmad Malla S/o Wali Mohammad Malla
R/o Narwani Barbugh, Shopian.
...APPELLANTS(S)
Through: - Mr. Tariq M. Shah, Advocate.
Vs.
1. UT of J&K through Commissioner
Secretary, Home Department, Civil
Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu.
2. District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner,
Shopian.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
OSWAL ‘J’
1) Impugned in this appeal is the judgment/order dated
06.03.2025 passed by the learned Writ Court in HCP
No.152/2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
appellant against the order of detention bearing No.184-
LPA No.62/2025 1|Page
DMS/PSA/2024 dated 04.04.2024, issued by respondent
No.2, has been dismissed.
2) Aggrieved of the judgment/order dated 06.03.2025
(supra), the appellant has assailed the same through the
medium of instant appeal on the following grounds:
(I) That no sufficient material was provided to the
appellant but to his father by the Superintendent
District Jail, Baramulla, and only the detention
order, warrant of execution and interrogation
report, which the appellant had annexed with
the writ petition, were provided to him and the
dossier, confirmation order of Government,
receipt of detention papers along with the
report/declaration of executing officer allegedly
comprising of 13 leaves of documents, did not
include the dossier, as such, the
judgment/order impugned is not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
(II) That the learned Writ Court has failed to
appreciate the fact that the appellant was
already in custody of police prior to the passing
and execution of the detention order dated
04.04.2024, which is evident from the
applications placed on record along with the
appeal in the form of Annexure-IV.
(III) That the detaining authority has issued the order
of detention without applying its mind
independently and without furnishing reasons
LPA No.62/2025 2|Page
which is evident from the grounds of detention
which have been framed by the detaining
authority by solely placing reliance upon the
dossier placed before the detaining authority by
the SSP, Shopian.
(IV) That the learned Writ Court did not return any
finding in respect of the contention of the
appellant that he was forced to make
confession against himself at the hands of
police which was later on reduced into writing in
the form of ‘interrogation report’ which
ultimately formed the basis of the dossier
prepared by the SSP, Shopian, on the basis of
which the respondent No.2 issued the order of
detention.
(V) That the representation submitted by the
appellant through his father was not considered
by the respondents, as such, the impugned
order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3) Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the
grounds of challenge as recorded above.
4) Per contra, Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, learned Dy. AG,
has submitted that all the documents relied upon by the
detaining authority were provided to the appellant against
proper receipt and all the procedural safeguards were
adhered to while issuing the detention order.
5) Heard and perused the record. LPA No.62/2025 3|Page 6) Firstly, it was contended that the dossier was not
provided to the appellant, as such, the order of detention is
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7) The perusal of the ground (iv) of the writ petition
preferred by the appellant reveals that it was pleaded by
him that he was not provided with the copy of the detention
order including the dossier/grounds of detention on the
basis of which he had been ordered to be detained but
because of his efforts, he had been able to manage and
obtain the copy of the same. Thus, in the writ petition it was
admitted by the appellant that he was in receipt of the
detention order, dossier and the grounds of detention. In
para 2(c) of the appeal, it has been pleaded by the appellant
that it was his father who had obtained the material
pertaining to detention of the appellant from
Superintendent District Jail, Baramulla, which included
the detention order, warrant of execution and the
interrogation report and further that after the dictation of
the impugned judgment/order was over, the appellant
managed the copy of the dossier, confirmation order of the
Government, receipt of detention papers along with the
report/declaration of the executing officer. This is true that
in the report/declaration of the executing officer, it is not
stated that 13 leaves of documents/material provided to the
LPA No.62/2025 4|Page
appellant included the dossier, but the appellant has taken
contradictory and inconsistent stands in the writ petition
as well as the appeal. In the writ petition it was admitted by
the appellant that he had managed to obtain the dossier
whereas in the appeal, it is pleaded by him that after the
dictation of the impugned judgment/order was over, he
managed the documents including the dossier. It is quite
strange that when the appellant was in custody and the
impugned judgment/order was rendered by the learned
Writ Court, then how he managed to get the documents.
8) Be that as it may, once there was admission on the
part of the appellant in his writ petition with regard to the
fact that he was in receipt of the dossier, he cannot deviate
from this stand to his advantage by submitting that he
managed to obtain the dossier only after the dictation of the
impugned judgment/order. It appears that the appellant is
trying to derive benefit from the report/declaration of the
executing officer wherein reference has been made to 13
leaves of documents provided to the appellant. In view of
the pleadings and the stand taken by the appellant before
the learned Writ Court as well as before this Court, we do
not find any force in the contention regarding non-
furnishing of dossier to the appellant, as such, the same is
rejected.
LPA No.62/2025 5|Page 9) Secondly, it was contended that the representation
submitted against the detention order was not considered
by the respondents. After examining the detention record,
we find that a representation was submitted by the father
of the appellant to the Chairman of the Advisory Board
which was considered and rejected by the Advisory Board
on 15.05.2024. The perusal of the detention record also
reveals that the representation was also submitted to the
Home Department as well, and the same was forwarded to
CID vide communication dated 03.05.2024 but rejected on
30.05.2024. Thus, it becomes clear that it was received by
the Home Department before 03.05.2024. The information
of rejection was communicated to the appellant only on
10.07.2024, thus there is delay in considering the
representation and communication of decision to the
appellant. On this ground only, the detention of the
appellant cannot sustain. In this context, it would be
apposite to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in “Sarabjeet Singh Mokha vs. District Magistrate,
Jabalpur and others“, (2021) 20 SCC 98, wherein the
Supreme Court has addressed the legal impact of a delay in
considering a detenu’s representation, as well as the failure
to communicate the decision to the detenu, on the overall
validity of the detention. The governing principle is laid
LPA No.62/2025 6|Page
down in paragraph 47 of the judgment. The relevant extract
reads as under:
“47. By delaying its decision on the representation, the
State Government deprived the detenu of the valuable
right which emanates from the provisions of Section 8(1)
of having the representation being considered
expeditiously. As we have noted earlier, the
communication of the grounds of detention to the detenu
“as soon as may be” and the affording to the detenu of
the earliest opportunity of making a representation
against the order of detention to the appropriate
government are intended to ensure that the
representation of the detenu is considered by the
appropriate government with a sense of immediacy. The
State Government failed to do so. The making of a
reference to the Advisory Board could not have
furnished any justification for the State Government not
to deal with the representation independently at the
earliest. The delay by the State Government in disposing
of the representation and by the Central and State
Governments in communicating such rejection, strikes at
the heart of the procedural rights and guarantees
granted to the detenu. It is necessary to understand that
the law provides for such procedural safeguards to
balance the wide powers granted to the executive under
the NSA. The State Government cannot expect this
Court to uphold its powers of subjective satisfaction to
detain a person, while violating the procedural
guarantees of the detenu that are fundamental to the
laws of preventive detention enshrined in the
Constitution.”
10) We have examined the judgment rendered by the
learned Writ Court and we are of the considered view that
the learned Writ Court has not examined the issue, as
discussed above by us, as such, the judgment dated
06.03.2025 passed by the Writ Court cannot sustain and
the same is required to be set aside.
LPA No.62/2025 7|Page
11. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the
judgment dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned Writ
Court is set aside. Resultantly, the order of detention
bearing No. No.184-DMS/PSA/2024 dated 04.04.2024 is
quashed. The appellant is directed to be released from
custody forthwith, provided he is not required in any other
case.
12. The record be returned to learned counsel for the
respondents.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Srinagar
09.03.2026
N Ahmad
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: No
Nissar Ahmad Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
LPA No.62/2025 8|Page
authenticity of this document
09.03.2026 12:24