Sakeena Bano vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 5 March, 2026

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Sakeena Bano vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 5 March, 2026

Author: Rahul Bharti

Bench: Rahul Bharti

                                1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT SRINAGAR



HCP No. 99/2025

Sakeena Bano
                                                 .....Petitioners

               Through: Mr. Owais Ashraf Shah, Advocate.

             Vs.

Union Territory of J&K and Others
                                                  .....Respondents


               Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG with
                        Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting
                        counsel.
Coram :    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
                          JUDGMENT

05.03.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as for the

respondents. Perused the respective

side’s pleadings and the documents

accompanying therewith. Also perused

the detention record produced from the

end of the respondents.

2. The petitioner-Sakeena Bano acting

through her husband-Siraj-u-din Khan

Page 1 of 7
2

came forward with the institution of the

present writ petition on 14.05.2025

while being in the state of preventive

detention custody slapped upon her by

the respondent No.2-Divisional

Commissioner, Kashmir by reference to

the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substance (PITNDPS) Act, 1988.

3. The Senior Superintendent of Police

(SSP), Budgam, by virtue of a letter No.

PSA-Cell/Dossier/2025/276-79 dated

08.03.2025, had submitted a dossier

to the respondent No.2- Divisional

Commissioner, Kashmir by reporting

alleged activities of the petitioner

reckoned to fall within scope of mischief

of PITNDPS Act, 1988 warranting her

preventive detention which

consequently resulted in issuance of

the detention order No.

Page 2 of 7
3

DIVCOM”K”/62/2025 dated

03.04.2025 ordering preventive

detention of the petitioner and her

confinement in the Central Jail,

Srinagar.

4. In the grounds of detention so

formulated, the respondent No.2-

Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir

refers the petitioner to be a notorious

illicit drug peddler of the area, running

an illegal trade of narcotics since long

time and in the process becoming

principal dealer of narcotic drugs and

psychotropic substances by developing

contacts with drug peddlers operative in

the area.

5. The arrest of the petitioner by reference

to FIR No.46/2023 under sections

8/20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance (PITNDPS) Act,

1985 by the Police Station Chadoora,

Page 3 of 7
4

has been referred to portray the

petitioner’s antecedents warranting her

detention.

6. Pursuant to the preventive detention

order above referred, the petitioner had

come to be taken into custody on

05.04.2025 to be confined in the

Central Jail, Srinagar wherein the

petitioner is on verge of completing her

one year detention period which came

to be served upon her by virtue of

Government Order No. Home/PB-

V/743/2025 dated 03.05.2025 passed

by the Home Department, UT of Jammu

& Kashmir.

7. The period of detention fastened upon

the petitioner was from 05.04.2025 till

04.04.2026.

8. The preventive detention of the

petitioner has been assailed on the

grounds as set out in the writ petition.

Page 4 of 7
5

9. The counter affidavit to the writ petition

came to be filed on 07.10.2025.

10. When this Court examines the

grounds of detention, this Court finds

that the respondent No.2-Divisional

Commissioner, Kashmir is at a loss to

figure out that if the alleged reported

act of commission of offence had

resulted in booking of the petitioner in

FIR No.46/2023, then how come the

alleged state of activities of the

petitioner on the basis whereof she was

being subjected to preventive detention

have gone begging for registration of a

criminal case/s against her.

11. The State cannot be heard to

condone culpable and criminal state of

activities of a subject warranting

punitive punishment and switch over to

preventive detention remedy as that

Page 5 of 7
6

would amount to judicial function to be

taken over by the Executive.

12. This Court is convinced that resort

to PITNDPS Act, 1988 has been made

only to short circuit the criminal trial

outcome of the petitioner by subjecting

her to suffer punitive punishment

before the verdict of the criminal court.

13. In the light of the aforesaid

scenario, the preventive detention of the

petitioner is held to be illegal, as such,

Detention Order No.

DIVCOM”K”/62/2025 dated

03.04.2025 passed by the respondent

No.2-Divisional Commissioner,

Kashmir, is hereby quashed with

immediate effect. The petitioner is

ordered to be restored to her personal

liberty by her release from the

concerned Jail for which the

Page 6 of 7
7

Superintendent concerned to carry out

the compliance.

14. Disposed of, as indicated above.

( RAHUL BHARTI )
JUDGE
Srinagar
05.03.2026
Muzammil Q

Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No

Page 7 of 7