Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Sheeraz Ahmad Sheikh vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 29 April, 2026
Page |1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No.155/2025
Reserved on: 23.04.2026
Pronounced on: 29.04.2026
Uploaded on: 30.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Sheeraz Ahmad Sheikh
S/O Ali Mohammad Sheikh
Through his brother
Gowher Ahmad Sheikh
R/O Batamurran, Wanpora,
District Shopian.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Adv. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K through
Principal Secretary to Govt.
Home Department,
Civil Sectt. Srinagar.
2. District Magistrate, Shopian.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Shopian.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Dy.AG Bikramdeep Singh.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this petition has been thrown to a Detention Order No.
08/DMS/PSA of 2025 dated 01.05.2025 passed by respondent no. 2-
District Magistrate, Shopian vide which petitioner came to be detained
under Section 8(1)(a) of The J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 in view of
his alleged activities prejudicial to the ‘security of U.T of J&K’ and
lodged in District Jail Udhampur.
Page |2
2. Background facts of the case are that the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Shopian-respondent No.3, describing the petitioner as a
desperate character, habitually indulging in illegal activities, which
poses great threat to the security, peace and tranquility of UT of J&K,
submitted a dossier and connected documents to District Magistrate,
Shopian-respondent No.2 for his detention.
3. The dossier elaborated three FIRs against the petitioner viz., FIR No.
25/2019 under sections 3/5 Explosive Substances Act and 15, 16 of
UA(P) Act registered at P/S Sherghari; FIR No. 509/2010 under
sections 443, 379 RPC registered at P/S Shopian; and FIR No. 121/2010
under sections 379, 413, 467 RPC registered at P/S Pulwama. It was
alleged that the petitioner has been found to be an over ground worker
(OGW) of the terrorists and is actively involved in providing a variety
of logistic support to them who have unleashed a spate of terror in the
area, besides the petitioner is involved in sharing the movement of
security forces and police and related information with the terrorists in
the area. It was also alleged that on the basis of information gathered
from discrete surveillance reports the petitioner is found to be an over
ground worker(OGW) of different terror outfits and has been constantly
engaged in providing all kinds of logistic support to active terrorists
which makes him habitual offender. The petitioner is found devising
new means and methods with other OGWs to facilitate terrorists at
every possible sphere and to ensure disruption of security, peace and
stability in the district. It was further alleged that petitioner was not only
involved in organized crime but he also had close association/links with
hardcore/notorious criminals and his activities created a sense of
Page |3
insecurity and terror in the area with potential to disturb peace and
communal harmony.
4. The petitioner pleads that the activities attributed to him have allegedly
taken place in the year 2019 and thereafter no fresh activity has been
attributed to the detenue and the impugned detention order has been
passed on 01.05.2025 meaning thereby that there is delay of about six
years between the alleged activity and the order of detention and this
delay has snapped the proximity of allegations with passing of detention
order; that the petitioner has been detained on the basis of false and
frivolous FIRs registered against him but the offences mentioned above
are not covered under Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 and in
the absence of the same the impugned detention order is bad in eyes of
law; that the impugned order has been passed on the ground of
involvement of the petitioner in FIRs with respect to which the
petitioner has already been enlarged on bail which have no foundation
and, as such, the order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be
revoked; that the detaining authority has not considered the
representation of the petitioner and further no time limit has been
communicated to the petitioner within which he was supposed to make
a representation to the detaining authority and that no satisfaction has
been recorded by detaining authority that the normal punitive law has
failed to prevent the illegal activities of the petitioner which renders
necessary issuance of detention order, as such, the order impugned is
liable to be quashed.
5. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit, wherein it has been
contended that none of the legal, constitutional and statutory right of the
petitioner has been violated and impugned order came to be passed by
Page |4
the detaining authority after due consideration of the dossier submitted
by SSP Shopian; that the petitioner was continuously and repeatedly
involved in criminal activities, particularly his role to strengthen the
terrorist infrastructure leading to loss of lives and property which
include killing of non-local street vendors, labourers working in
orchards, policemen who are off-duty or are unarmed and the aim of
these killings is to create terror and a situation of insecurity, which is
highly prejudicial to the security of the UT of J&K. Respondents further
contend that the material relied upon, including three FIRs, showed a
continuous pattern of conduct on the part of the petitioner, thereby
threatening law and order.
6. Heard, perused the detention record as has been made available by
learned counsel for the respondents and considered the same.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds pleaded
in the petition, argued that the case submits that the petitioner is
aggrieved of the impugned order on the ground that all the relevant
documents, including copies of FIRs and bail orders were not furnished
to him, so as to enable him to make an effective and meaningful
representation. He further submits that out of three cases registered
against the petitioner, two registered in the year 2010 related to theft
etc., as such, these cannot be based to order preventive detention; that
the third FIR registered in the year 2019 was though related to alleged
unlawful activities, however, same could not have been relied to order
preventive detention in the year 2015, after more than five years, the
ground being stale having no proximity; that the other grounds being
vague with no specific allegations also vitiate the impugned detention
order and prayed that the same be quashed.
Page |5
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex-adverso, submits that the
grounds of detention, detention warrant and all relevant documents,
comprising of 41 leaves, were not only supplied to the petitioner but
also read over and explained to him in the language he fully understands
against a proper receipt duly signed by him. He further pleads that the
petitioner was informed by the detaining authority about the detention
order and grounds on which it was issued. He was also informed about
his right to make representation to the Government against the detention
order, if he so desired; that the District Magistrate, Shopian-respondent
no.2 received a representation on behalf of the detenue through his
brother namely Gowhar Ahmad Sheikh, which was forwarded to
Principal Secretary, Home Department Government of J&K, vide letter
dated 13.06.2025. The Home Department, vide order dated 12.08.2025,
intimated that representation of the petitioner was considered and was
found without any merit. This communication is stated to have been
endorsed to Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur, with a direction to
inform the detenue regarding disposal of the representation.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents, while arguing the case, submitted
that since action taken against the petitioner in the past under
substantive laws did not prove fruitful in deterring him from indulging
in anti-national activities, therefore, for the maintenance of security of
the UT of J&K, it was deemed fit to detain him under the provisions of
PSA. It is argued that on the basis of objective and dispassionate
assessment of a clear and consistent pattern in the criminal activities
carried out by the petitioner, the detaining authority has come to the
conclusion that there was no likelihood of the detenue being dissuaded
from indulging in similar activities. Therefore, it is contended that
Page |6
detention of the petitioner has been ordered after due consideration of
the dossier received from the sponsoring authority-SSP, Shopian and
keeping in view the gravity of the situation, the petitioner came to be
detained under Public Safety Act.
10. A perusal of the detention record would also show that upon execution
of the impugned order, 41 leaves of relevant documents came to be
supplied to the petitioner against proper receipt. They are stated to have
been read over and explained to him in Kashmiri/Urdu language, which
he understood, and his signatures as a token of acknowledgement have
been obtained. The petitioner was informed about the detention order
and the grounds on which it came to be issued against him. He was also
informed about his right to make representation to the Government
against the detention order, if he so desired. Pertinently, the petitioner
has not filed any rejoinder to refute the stand of the respondents that
entire relevant material was furnished to him, relevant documents were
read over and explained to him in his language and he was informed
about his constitutional right to make his representation.
11. Since respondents, in their counter affidavit, have denied allegations of
the petitioner that entire relevant material was not supplied to him, same
was not read over and explained to him in his language and he was
informed about his right to make an effective representation, it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to rebut the stand of the
respondents/detaining authority by filing a rejoinder affidavit, which he
had chosen not to file.
12. In these circumstances, categoric stand of the respondents that not only
relevant documents were provided to him, but same were read over and
explained to the petitioner in his language, remains un-rebutted. It, thus,
Page |7
implies that detaining authority and the executing officer in this respect
have scrupulously adhered to the statutory requirements and
constitutional obligations on their part.
13. Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
he came to be detained on the basis of false and frivolous FIRs for
offences which, according to him, are not covered under Section 8 of
Public Safety Act, and in all the said FIRs, he has already been
enlarged on bail and since petitioner was enlarged on bail by the
competent court in all the FIRs alleged against him and the prosecution
never filed any application for cancellation of bail extended in his
favour by the concerned courts from time to time, recourse to PSA by
the detaining authority is illegal.
14. It is a settled proposition of law that power of preventive detention is
precautionary in nature and can be exercised on reasonable
apprehension and it may or may not relate to an offence. It is also trite
that basis of a detention order is the satisfaction of the detaining
authority regarding reasonable probability of the detenu indulging in
activities similar to his past conduct and to prevent him from
reoffending.
15. A five judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Haradhan Saha vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.‘ reported in (1975) 3 SCC 198, in a
similar fact situation, has held that preventive detention has nothing to
do with the commission of an offence by the detenue or any prosecution
against him. It is clearly ruled by the Apex Court that preventive
detention can be ordered before or during the prosecution and even with
or without prosecution of a criminal case against the detenue. It can be
Page |8
made in anticipation. Preventive detention can be ordered even after
discharge or acquittal of an accused.
16. The position of law crystallized in the case of Haradhan Saha (supra)
is that pendency of a criminal case is no bar to order preventive
detention and Article 14, in such cases, takes a back seat because
preventive detention and prosecution are not synonymous. Relevant
portion in Paras 32 to 34 of the judgment for the ease of reference is
extracted below:-
“32. The power of preventive detention is qualitatively
different from punitive detention. The power of
preventive detention is a precautionary power
exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may
not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel
proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution
even if it relies on certain facts for which
prosecution may be launched or may have been
launched. An order of preventive detention may be,
made before or during prosecution. An order of
preventive detention may be made with or without
prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge
or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is
no bar to an order of preventive detention. An
order of preventive detention is also not a bar to
prosecution.
33. Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive
detention and prosecution are not synonymous. The
purposes are different. The authorities are different.
The nature of proceedings is different. In a
prosecution an accused is sought to be punished for
a past act. In preventive detention, the past act is
merely the material for inference about the future
course of probable conduct on the part of the
detenu.
34. The recent decisions of this Court on this subject
are many. The decisions in Borjahan Gorey v. State
of W. B., Ashim Kumar Ray V. State of W. B.; Abdul
Aziz V. District Magistrate, Burdwan and Debu
Mahato V. State of W. B. correctly lay down the
principles to be followed as to whether a detention
order is valid or not. The decision in Biram Chand
v. State of U. P. which is a Division Bench decision
of two learned Judges is contrary to the other Bench
decisions consisting in each case of three learned
Judges. The principles which can be broadly stated
Page |9are these. First, merely because a detenu is liable to
be tried in a criminal court for the commission of a
criminal offence or to be proceeded against for
preventing him from committing offences dealt with
in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure would not by itself debar the Government
from taking action for his detention under the Act.
Second, the fact that the Police arrests a person and
later on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to
prosecute him under the Code of Criminal
Procedure and even lodges a first information report
may be no bar against the District Magistrate
issuing an order under the preventive detention.
Third, where the concerned person is actually in jail
custody at the time when an order of detention is
passed against him and is not likely to be released
for a fair length of time, it may be possible to
contend that there could be no satisfaction on the
part of the detaining authority as to the likelihood of
such a person indulging in activities which would
jeopardise the security of the State or the public
order. Fourth, the mere circumstance that a
detention order is passed during the pendency of the
prosecution will not violate the order. Fifth, the
order of detention is a precautionary measure. It is
based on a reasonable prognosis of the future
behaviour of a person based on his past conduct in
the light of the surrounding circumstances.”
17. The next ground urged by the petitioner is that grounds of detention are
verbatim repetition of the dossier of SSP, Shopian and detaining
authority failed to record its subjective satisfaction that alleged
activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of security
of UT of J&K. This contention of the petitioner is found specious and
misconceived.
18.The details of multiple FIRs against the petitioner with clear reference
to his past activities in the dossier as also in the grounds of detention,
in-fact reflects manifest awareness and application of mind on the part
of the detaining authority before it embarked to pass the impugned
order. It is apparent from the grounds of detention that respondent no. 2-
District Magistrate, Shopian (detaining authority) passed the impugned
P a g e | 10
order on reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the petitioner
based on his past conduct and in the light of attending circumstances of
the case.
19. High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, has a very limited scope
to examine the grounds of detention and sufficiency of the material
relied by the detaining authority. It cannot sit in appeal and final fault
with the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority and
substitute its own opinion when the grounds of detention are precise,
pertinent and proximate. It is exclusive domain of the administration to
ensure the maintenance of public peace and tranquility. The subjective
satisfaction drawn by the detaining authority that ordinary law of the
land has not proved sufficient to deter the detenue from indulging in
repeated anti-social activities is not open to objective scrutiny by the
High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
20. Another ground urged by the petitioner to assail the impugned order is
that detaining authority did not consider his representation. However, a
perusal of the record reveals that District Magistrate, Shopian –
respondent No. 2 herein received a representation on behalf of the
petitioner through his brother namely Gowhar Ahmad Sheikh on
14.05.2025, which was immediately forwarded to the Principal
Secretary, Home Department. The Home Department, in turn, intimated
that representation preferred by the petitioner was considered and was
found without merit. The Superintendent District Jail, Udhampur, vide
his communication, intimated the Home Department that disposal of the
representation was communicated to the petitioner. The respondents, in
their counter affidavit, have not only denied the allegation of the
petitioner that they refused to consider his representation but placed on
P a g e | 11
record sufficient material to assert that representation filed on behalf of
the petitioner was duly considered and decision was conveyed to him by
the Superintendent of the concerned Jail. The detention record belies the
allegation of the petitioner that respondents refused to consider his
representation. The record rather bears testimony to the fact that
representation, preferred on behalf of the petitioner has been duly
considered.
21. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man
for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from
doing so, the Supreme Court held in the case ‘Naresh Kumar Goyal v.
Union of India & Ors.‘, reported as 2005 (8) SCC 276, and reiterated
in the judgment in a case titled ‘Union of India and another v. Dimple
Happy Dhakad‘ (AIR 2019 SC 3428) that an order of detention is not
a curative or reformative or punitive, but a preventive action,
acknowledged object of which being to prevent anti-social and
subversive elements from endangering the welfare of the country or
security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from
indulging in anti-national activities or smuggling activities or from
engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society.
Rulings on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive
detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to
punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does
it and to prevent him from doing so.
22. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order of detention. The grounds of detention, on the basis of
P a g e | 12
which impugned order came to be passed are found definite and
unambiguous.
23. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is dismissed and impugned
order is upheld.
24. Scanned detention record, as produced, be returned to learned counsel
or respondents.
( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
29.04.2026
Muzammil. Q
Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No
[ad_1]
Source link
