Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Javid Ahmad Zargar vs Union Territory Of J And K And Others on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
01
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP 22/2026 CM(979/2026)
JAVID AHMAD ZARGAR ..... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate.
V/s
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel.
Officer in Court: Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Dy. SP Hqrs. Kulgam
Mr. Anwar Hussain, Sub Inspector
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti, Judge
ORDER
24.03.2026
1. In furtherance of order dated 06.03.2026, the petitioner-Javid
Ahmad Zargar, as being detenu, has been brought in person by
Sub Inspector Anwar Hussain from the District Police Line,
Jammu. Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Dy. SP Hqrs. Kulgam is present also.
2. The context in which this Court was constrained to direct
personal appearance of the detenu is set out in the order dated
06.03.2026 after having found that the impugned detention Order
No. DIVCOM “K”/100/2024 dated 25.04.2024, pursuant to
which the petitioner came to be taken into custody, is nothing but
a sheer abuse of process of law originated by the Superintendent
Page |2
HCP 22/2026
CM(979/2026
of Police, Kulgam who took the liberty of even keeping the
respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir uninformed
about the fact that the petitioner was already in
custody/confinement as an undertrial in connection with criminal
case with respect to FIR No. 182/2023 registered by the Police
Station, Kulgam before coming out upon acquittal in terms of
judgment dated 10.02.2026 only to be taken into confinement
again by reference to the impugned detention Order No.
DIVCOM “K”/100/2024 dated 25.04.2024.
3. By no stretch of factual and legal premise, this Court can allow
the impugned detention Order No. DIVCOM “K”/100/2024
dated 25.04.2024 to stay and survive otherwise this Court would
become privy to trampling of a fundamental right of personal
liberty of the petitioner at the hands of the respondents by
resorting to preventive detention jurisdiction without any basis
except ego satisfaction of the then Superintendent of Police,
Kulgam who framed a dossier for subjecting the petitioner to
preventive detention despite being fully aware and cognizant of
the fact that the petitioner was not a free man at the relevant point
of time so as to count his personal liberty status as prejudicial to
Page |3
HCP 22/2026
CM(979/2026
the intendment of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
declares the custody of the petitioner to be illegal and restores him
to his personal liberty forthwith from the court room itself.
5. In case the petitioner is warranted in any pending criminal case,
then the course of law would take its own effect.
6. Disposed of as above.
7. A copy of this order be provided to Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, learned
Senior Additional Advocate General under the seal and signature
of Bench Secretary of this court for the sake of notice of all
concerned in particular at the end of the Superintendent, Central
Jail, Kotbhalwal, Jammu.
(Rahul Bharti)
Judge
SRINAGAR
24.03.2026
Aasif
Whether the order is speaking Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable Yes/No