Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Junaid Ahmad Bangroo vs Union Territory Of J & K And Ors on 31 March, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No. 132/2025
Reserved on: 09.02.2026
Pronounced on 31. 03.2026
JUNAID AHMAD BANGROO ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S. T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate.
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J & K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Perused the writ petition along with the annexures thereto.
Also perused the counter affidavit from the end of the
respondents.
3. The petitioner came forward with institution of present writ
petition on 21st May 2025, acting through his brother,
thereby seeking quashment of preventive detention Order No.
DM/PSA/16/2025 dated 3rd May 2025 passed by the
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate, Srinagar acting
under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
ordering preventive detention of the petitioner for preventing
him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of security of the State.
4. A case for seeking preventive detention of the petitioner was
put forth by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Srinagar who, vide his letter No. LGL/Det/2025/14230-33
dated 29th April 2025, had submitted a dossier with respect
to the alleged state of activities of the petitioner reckoned by
the District Police to be prejudicial to the maintenance of
security of the State.
5. In response to said dossier, the respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate, Srinagar purportedly formulated grounds of
detention on the basis whereof the respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate Srinagar came up with purorted subjective
satisfaction that the alleged reported activities of the
petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the State
warranting his preventive detention which led to the passing
of detention Order No. DM/PSA/16/2025 dated 3rd May
2025, thereby ordering the preventive detention and
confinement of the petitioner in District Jail, Udhampur for a
period to be notified by the Government.
6. The detention order came to be executed when the petitioner
was taken into custody by ASI Mohammad Shafi, PID No.
ARP-876060 of Police Station Safakadal, Srinagar on
5th May 2025.
7. By virtue of Government Order No. Home/PB-V/873 of
2025 dated 08.05.2025, preventive detention Order No.
DM/PSA/16/2025 dated 3rd May 2025 came to be
approved and the case then referred for the opinion of the
Advisory Board.
8. The dossier which formed the basis for the respondent No.
2-District Magistrate, Srinagar to exercise jurisdiction under
the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 to order the preventive
detention of the petitioner refers to the fact that petitioner is a
cousin of an active terrorist namely Mehraj-ud-din
Bangroo, and that he is deeply influenced by radical
ideology by being in continuous touch with such elements
who motivated him to indulge in anti-national activities
bearing a direct threat to the security of the Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir.
9. The petitioner is said to have been rapidly motivated to
indulge in anti-national activities provoking general masses,
especially youth of downtown areas and its adjacent areas
towards unlawful activities in a very short span of time, and
thus becoming an incorrigible anti-national element of his
area.
10. By reference to his reported alleged state of activities and
bent of mind, the dossier refers to the fact that the petitioner
was also previously subjected to preventive detention custody
vide order No. DM/PSA/24/2024 dated 9th September 2024
passed under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act,
1978, which came to be questioned by him before this Court
in writ petition WP(Crl) No. 308/2024, which came to be
allowed in terms of judgment dated 24th December 2024,
resulting in his release from preventive detention custody,
but the petitioner again allegedly relapsed to anti-national
activities by not mending his ways despite being given many
opportunities with the hope of the petitioner living a normal
life, as a result whereof, the petitioner came to be subjected to
repeated preventive proceedings under Sections 126/170
BNS and 107/151 CrPC, in which regard, the dossier recites
proceedings dated 10th May 2024, 23rd April 2024, 5th August
2024, 23rd August 2024, 24th April 2024, 29th August 2024,
11th April 2025, and 18th March 2025.
11. The grounds of detention formulated by the respondent No.
2-District Magistrate Srinagar literally follows text track of
the dossier except for last two paragraphs wherefrom the
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Srinagar is coming forth
with the purported subjective satisfaction that the petitioners’
alleged activities make out a case for his preventive detention
and with a same stroke of pen in formulating grounds of
detention the activities of the petitioner are found to be
adverse with respect to maintenance of public order but the
detention is being referred to the security of the State
scenario and it is this inherent illegality which renders the
very application of mind of the respondent No. 2-District
Magistrate Srinagar seriously suspect as to whether the
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Srinagar is himself the
thinker and author of the grounds of detention or the same
have been worked out by the assignor to whom the file was
assigned by the respondent No. 2-District Magistrate
Srinagar.
12. In the light of the aforesaid inherent infirmity with respect to
the very grounds of detention so formulated by the
respondent No. 2-District Magistrate Srinagar the passing of
impugned preventive detention order No. DM/PSA/16/2025
dated 3rd May 2025 is rendered illegal and cannot escape
from suffering quashment and is accordingly quashed.
13. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty
forthwith by the Superintendent of concerned Jail wherefrom
the petitioner is being kept in confinement in terms of the
detention order hereby quashed.
14. Disposed of.
;
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
31.03.2026
Hilal
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
