Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Sehran Bashir Nadaf vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 25 March, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 26.02.2026
Pronounced on: 25.03.2026
HCP No. 226/2025
Sehran Bashir Nadaf
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Others
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Perused the pleadings and also the detention
record.
3. The petitioner-Sehran Bashir Nadaf, a 19 years’
young boy, acting through his mother-Nayeema
Akther, petitioned this Court on 17.06.2025 with
present writ of habeas corpus for seeking
quashment of preventive detention order slapped
upon him under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978
with a purported end and objective to prevent him
Page 1 of 16
2
acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of
State/UT of J&K.
4. The respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Anantnag was approached by the Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Anantnag with a
dossier submitted through a letter No.
CS/71/2025/7079-84 dated 13.05.2025
wherein a case was put up for seeking preventive
detention custody of the petitioner on the alleged
state of activities of the petitioner being reckoned
by the District Police to be prejudicial to the
security of the State.
5. The dossier so submitted by the Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Anantnag was
eighteen pages compilation bearing purported
recitals that the petitioner was a 12th Standard
student who was preparing for NEET examination
through Online mode when on 29.05.2023 the
Police Station, Anantnag, acting on the docket of
the Incharge Police Post, Janglat Mandi,
Anantnag, came to be apprised about some
unknown terrorists having attacked a non-local
Page 2 of 16
3
labourer namely Deepak Kumar at Circus
Amusement Park near GMC, Anantnag which led
to the death of said victim thereby resulting in
registration of an FIR No.171/2023 under
Sections 302 IPC Sections 7/27 Indian Arms
Act 1959, Sections 16, 18, 20, 39 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with
the Police Station, Anantnag which undertook the
investigation in which connection the petitioner
was called for questioning to come up with a
purported disclosure that the petitioner is using
‘Iphone XS model’ and is active user of Social
Media of ‘Instagram’, ‘Facebook’, ‘WhatsApp’ and
‘Telegram’.
6. The petitioner is said to have disclosed that he
had agreed for transporting the arms and
ammunitions and in that regard had visited
Bijbehara near Higher Secondary School for
collecting one Pistol from one person namely
Umer Amin Thoker. Said Pistol is said to have
been used by the petitioner in carrying out the
Page 3 of 16
4
alleged incident of firing upon the non-local
person.
7. The petitioner, at the time of alleged
commission of offence and his consequent
booking therefor was a minor boy and, as such,
was treated to be a Juvenile to be bailed out by
virtue of an order dated 04.02.2025 of the
Juvenile Justice Board, Anantnag, whereafter the
petitioner is said to have been put under
surveillance in the course of which the
petitioner’s alleged activities were reckoned to be
sufficient enough to book him for preventive
detention custody.
8. Except the alleged criminal act forming subject
matter of said FIR No.171/2023, the petitioner’s
antecedents in the dossier are reporting nothing
adverse, objectionable and questionable.
9. In connection with said FIR No.171/2023
dated 29.05.2023, the petitioner came to be
taken into custody only to come out of that
custody with passing of the order dated
Page 4 of 16
5
04.02.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Anantnag.
10. Thus, for almost a period of two years w.e.f.,
29.05.2023 to 04.02.2025, the petitioner had
remained in a state of custody during which it
cannot be said by any stretch of reference and
claim that the petitioner was found indulgent or
indulging in the state of activities prejudicial to
the security of the State.
11. The petitioner earned his release from case
custody with passing of an order dated
04.02.2025 by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Anantnag but within a period of next three
months, passing of preventive detention order No.
21/DMS/PSA/DET/2025 dated 14.05.2025
came to take place with consequent arrest and
detention of the petitioner taking place on
18.05.2025.
12. It is in this window period w.e.f., 04.02.2025
till 13.05.2025 when the Senior Superintendent
of Police (SSP), Anantnag had the purported
occasion to gather the alleged state of activities of
Page 5 of 16
6
the petitioner to be reckoned as prejudicial to the
security of the State so as to form basis for laying
a dossier for seeking preventive detention of the
petitioner under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
13. In his dossier, the Senior Superintendent of
Police (SSP), Anantnag refers to the year of birth
of the petitioner being 2005 at village Sherapora,
Anantnag, early education of the petitioner from
SAPHS (Sabir Abdullah Public High School)
Dialgam, Anantnag up to 10th class and thereafter
getting admission in the Government High
School, Brakpora, Anantnag wherefrom he is said
to have completed his 11th and 12th Standard
schooling to prepare himself for NEET
Examination through Online mode.
14. In his dossier, the Senior Superintendent of
Police (SSP), Anantnag further refers to the
alleged incident of 29.05.2023 resulting in
registration of FIR No.171/2023 which resulted
in arrest of the petitioner as accused and his bail
on 04.02.2025 by the Juvenile Justice Board,
Anantnag.
Page 6 of 16
7
15. Upon his release from the custody, the
petitioner is said to have been under proper
surveillance of the Security Agencies on the basis
whereof it was found out that the petitioner is not
refraining himself from Anti-national activities
and still supporting the terrorists in a well
disguised manner as a result whereof the normal
Law not proving sufficient to restrain him in
indulging in the activities prejudicial for
maintenance of the security of the State,
therefore, warrants invoking of preventive
detention jurisdiction.
16. On the basis of said dossier so submitted to
him, the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate,
Anantnag formulated the purported grounds of
detention by coming up with repeat of text of the
dossier and on that basis holding the petitioner’s
personal liberty being prejudicial to the security
of the State/UT of J&K and, therefore, warranting
his preventive detention under J&K Public Safety
Act, 1978 which led to passing of the Detention
Page 7 of 16
8
Order No. 21/DMS/PSA/DET/2025 dated
14.05.2025.
17. The petitioner was ordered to be detained and
kept in Central Jail, Kot-Bhalwal, Jammu.
18. By virtue of communication No.
DMA/JC/PSA/2025/133-38 dated 14.05.2025,
the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Anantnag meant to apprise the petitioner about
the fact of passing of detention order against him
and right of the petitioner, as a detenu upon
being taken into detention, to make a
representation either to the respondent No.2-
District Magistrate, Anantnag or to the
Government against the preventive detention
imposed upon him.
19. This communication to the petitioner was
accompanied with twenty leaves (pages)
compilation being the order of detention, the
grounds of detention, the dossier, the intelligence
reports, FIR and other miscellaneous documents.
20. By virtue of a Government Order No.
Home/PB-V/939 dated 15.05.2025, approval to
Page 8 of 16
9
the respondent No.2’s preventive detention Order
No. 21/DMS/PSA/DET/2025 dated 14.05.2025
came to be accorded whereupon the case was
referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion. It is
after passing of the aforesaid Government Order
that the actual arrest and detention of the
petitioner had come to take place on 18.05.2025.
21. The petitioner came to address a written
representation to the Home Secretary,
Government of UT of J&K on 23.05.2025
acknowledged against receipt No. 5822113.
22. In addition, the petitioner also addressed a
representation dated 23.05.2025 to the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Anantnag
acknowledged against receipt No. 3901/05 dated
27.05.2025 which came to be forwarded from the
end of the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Anantnag vide letter No.
DMA/Judicial/GEN/2025/807-12 dated
27.05.2025 to the Principal Secretary to
Government, Home Department, UT of J&K.
Page 9 of 16
10
23. Advisory Board came to tender its opinion on
File No. Home/PB-V/316/2025 dated
05.06.2025 on the basis whereof the petitioner’s
preventive detention was held to be justified
which paved way for issuance of Government
Order No. Home/PB-V/1230 dated 13.06.2025
thereby not only confirming the detention of the
petitioner but also prescribing the period of
detention of six months at the first instance from
18.05.2025 to 17.11.2025.
24. Vide letter No. Home/PB-
V/316/2025/7648285 dated 17.06.2025 from
the end of the Home Department, Government of
UT of J&K addressed to the respondent No.2-
District Magistrate, Anantnag, fact of rejection of
the petitioner’s representation came to be
conveyed.
25. It is at this stage of development of the facts
and circumstances that the petitioner had come
forward with the institution of the present writ
petition on 17.06.2025 assailing his preventive
Page 10 of 16
11
detention on the grounds as set out in Para 8 (A)
to (J).
26. In his writ petition, the petitioner has made
reference to the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the cases of:
i) Dhanayam Vs. State of Kerala, Criminal
Appeal No. 2897/2025 disposed of vide
judgment dated 06.06.2025;
ii) Vijay Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar
(1984) 3 SCC 14;
iii) Javeed Ahmad Bhat Vs. State 2003 (sup)
JKJ HC 241;
iv) Mohammad Rafiq Rather Vs. State 2003(2)
JKJ 743 HC;
v) Mohammad Hussain Vs. State 2005(2) JKJ
HC;
vi) Ghulam Nabi Shah Vs. State 2005(1) JKJ
251;
vii) AIR 2009 SC 2185;
viii) Ghulam Rasool Vs. State 2005(2) JKJ HC
400;
ix) AIR 1980 SC 1751;
Page 11 of 16
12
x) AIR 1999 SC 3251 & 1999;
xi) Mohammad Ahsan Antoo Vs. State 2011(2)
JKJ 216; and
xii) Ishfaq Ahmad Sofi Vs. State & Ors. 2014
(4) JKJ 21.
27. Counter affidavit to the writ petition came to
be filed on 04.11.2025 by the respondent No.2-
District Magistrate, Anantnag who at the relevant
point of time was Mr.Syeed Fakhrudin Hamid
(IAS).
28. In the counter affidavit, emphasis has been laid
upon the point that all statutory requirements
and constitutional guarantees came to be fulfilled
and complied with at the end of the respondent
No.2-District Magistrate, Anantnag in ordering
and carrying out the preventive detention of the
petitioner.
29. The fact of fate of rejection of the petitioner’s
representation being apprised to the petitioner in
terms of the communication No. Home/PB-
V/316/2025/7648285 dated 13.06.2025 has
been highlighted.
Page 12 of 16
13
30. Upon hearing the submissions from the both
sides and from perusal of the pleadings and the
supporting documents therewith as well as the
record of the detention produced for inspection of
this Court, what comes out to be in clear light is
that the petitioner’s adverse criminal antecedent
is referable only to FIR No. 171/2023 of Police
Station, Anantnag relatable to the alleged
commission of offence(s) when the petitioner was
in the state of juvenility and for that purpose
came to be released by the Juvenile Justice
Board, Anantnag on 04.04.2025. The petitioner
is being tried for the alleged commission of
offence(s) and that is the ordain of ordinary
criminal law of the land.
31. The alleged commission of offence(s) by
reference to FIR No. 171/2023 has to distance
itself from the profiling of the petitioner in the
context of evaluating as to whether his activities
while being in the state of personal liberty were of
the range and rank so as to fall within the scope
of mischief of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978
Page 13 of 16
14
and for that purpose the period of studied
surveillance is only when the petitioner came out
upon his release from case custody on
04.02.2025 and remained so till getting detained
on 18.05.2025.
32. Thus, it is only during the period of three
months’ personal liberty state that the petitioner’s
alleged state of activities are meant to be referred
to but then in the name of facts there is worth
nothing in the entire dossier to justify the concern
of the District Police Anantnag to lay a case for
seeking preventive detention of the petitioner and
correspondingly there were no basis for the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Anantnag to
reciprocate the plea of the District Police
Anantnag with preventive detention order against
the petitioner.
33. When this Court makes a comparative reading
of the Dossier as well as the Grounds of the
detention, this Courts finds the two are ‘much of a
muchness’ and this is where very exercise of
jurisdiction under the J&K Pubic Safety Act, 1978
Page 14 of 16
15
right from its origin from the end of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Anantnag and
culminating in issuance of detention order from
the end of the respondent No.2-District
Magistrate, Anantnag got on a wrong foot.
34. To put it in simple words, the petitioner has
been detained just for nothing but purely on
hollowed dubiety restored to by and at the end of
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag
and the respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Anantnag.
35. Personal liberty of a citizen of India guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not
meant to be a matter of skating on a thin ice that
at any given point of time a person can be tripped
to suffer deprivation and loss by a fiat of
Executive acting upon unfounded and mirage like
suspicion, more particularly when it is a matter of
a personal liberty of a young person who is
otherwise meant to find life for himself/herself.
36. In the light of all aforesaid, the preventive
detention of the petitioner is held to be illegal.
Page 15 of 16 16 Accordingly, preventive detention Order No. 21/DMS/PSA/DET/2025 dated 14.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Anantnag read with
approval/confirmation order(s) passed by the
Government of UT of J&K, are hereby quashed.
The petitioner is directed to be restored to his
personal liberty forthwith by his release from the
concerned Jail.
37. Disposed of, as such.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
Srinagar
25.03.2026
Muzammil Q
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No
Page 16 of 16