Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ajaz Ahmad Wani vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 2 July, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No. 106/2025
Pronounced on: 02.07.2026
Ajaz Ahmad Wani
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Owais Ashraf Shah, Advocate
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Perused the writ pleadings and documents
annexed therewith. Also examined the detention
record produced from the end of the respondents
relating to the petitioner’s detention.
3. The petitioner-Ajaz Ahmad Wani, is suffering
prevention detention custody on account of an Office
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 1 of 14
Order No. DMB/PSA/14 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025
passed by respondent No.2-District Magistrate,
Budgam in exercise of authority under section 8 of the
J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, on the basis whereof the
petitioner was directed to be detained and kept in
confinement so as to prevent him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the security of State.
4. The aforesaid detention order lead to the arrest
of the petitioner taking place on 02.05.2025 and kept
confined in the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu,
from which place of custody the petitioner, acting
through his wife-Dilshada Bano, came forward with
institution of present writ of habeas corpus on
16.05.2025 thereby seeking quashment of preventive
detention so slapped upon him.
5. The cause which lead to visitation of preventive
detention order upon the petitioner is sourced to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP), Budgam
preparing a dossier with respect to petitioner’s alleged
state of activities and submitting it to the respondent
No.2-District Magistrate, Budgam by way of letter No.
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 2 of 14
PSA Cell/dossier/2025/572-75 dated 28.04.2025
thereby soliciting exercise of jurisdiction by the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Budgam to order
the preventive detention of the petitioner.
6. The dossier so submitted by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, (SSP), Budgam comprised of
two components, one related to past activities of the
petitioner and second present state of activities of the
petitioner on the basis whereof the petitioner was
reckoned to be acting prejudicial to maintenance of
security of the State.
7. Past activities’ reference is related to the
petitioner’s implication in FIR No. 120/2020 of the
Police Station, Chadoora for alleged commission of
offences under sections 18, 19, 20 and 23 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. The petitioner’s next
involvement cited is in criminal case related to FIR No.
133/2018 under section 3 of the Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and section
148,149,307,336 and 427 RPC of Police Station
Chadoora. Similarly, the petitioner’s involvement in
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 3 of 14
criminal case by reference to FIR No. 135/2018 under
sections 307,148,149 and 336 RPC and 7/27 of Arms
Act, 1959 also of Police Station Chadoora came to be
in the dossier.
8. Insofar as present adverse state of activities as
reported in the dossier is concerned, the petitioner is
said to have been demonstrating a consistent patron of
engaging in activities jeopardizing public order and
security in the area and despite suffering repeated
arrest under preventive legal provisions being booked
before the competent Magistrate but still failing to
desist from subversive actions and being booked for
proceedings under section 107 read with 151 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on two occasions in
2024 and under section 126 read with section 170
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
four occasions in the year 2024 and on one occasion
in January 2025 came to be present reference.
9. By cumulative effect of aforesaid profiling of the
petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP),
Budgam came to refer petitioner being actively
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 4 of 14
engaged in covert subversive activities, posing grave
risk to national security with intelligence reports
indicating his involvement in clandestine
communications with individuals linked to terrorist
sympathizers and the operations of the petitioner
being deliberately concealed to evade law enforcement
surveillance. The petitioner is alleged to be persistent
in his efforts to radicalize vulnerable individuals by
inciting them to participate in anti-state activities.
10. By reference to the petitioner’s said alleged
activities, a pattern of his behavior was purportedly
decoded to the effect that there is a credible threat that
the petitioner may orchestrate fatal assaults targeting
non-local labourers in brick kilns, minority
communities, political figures, police and security
personnel in the area. Thus, the petitioner’s preventive
detention was proposed to be an operational necessity.
It has been very categorically referred in the dossier
that preventive detention under J&K Public Safety Act,
1978 is essential to disrupt the petitioner’s terror
networks, prevent potential attacks on soft targets and
maintain Public Order. The measure was
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 5 of 14
recommended to be imperative to safeguard national
security and ensure safety of citizens.
11. By reading and relying upon said dossier, the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Budgam
purportedly formulated grounds of detention which
more or less read like a dossier to draw subjective
satisfaction there from that unless and until the
petitioner is detained, security of the State would
remain jeopardized, thus, passed detention order No.
DMB/PSA/14 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 by ordering
preventive detention of the petitioner in order to
prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the security of the State.
12. Upon arrest and detention of the petitioner
taking place on 02.05.2025 carried out by SI Mushtaq
Ahmad of Police Station, Chadoora before handing
over his person to the Assistant Superintendent,
Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, the petitioner is
said to have been handed over a 24 leaves compilation
accompanied with reading of the contents in English
language and explaining to him in Urdu/Kashmiri
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 6 of 14
dialect which is said to have been fully understood by
the petitioner besides being apprised of his right to
make a representation to the Government as well as to
the detention order making authority.
13. Approval to the detention order No.
DMB/PSA/14 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 came to be
granted in terms of Government Order No. Home/PB-
V/829 of 2025 dated 06.05.2025 with forwarding of
the case to the Advisory Board for its opinion which
came to be tendered on 26.05.2025 holding the
petitioner’s detention to be based on justifiable
grounds. The Advisory Board even came to accord
consideration to the representation of the petitioner
submitted through his wife and found the said
representation worth no favourable response.
14. The Advisory Board’s opinion, thus, facilitated
issuance of Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1135
of 2025 dated 05.06.2025 confirming the petitioner’s
detention and also prescribing period of detention for
first period of six months w.e.f. 02.05.2025 till
01.11.2025 which period is said to have been
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 7 of 14
extended from time to time to last for full two years
maximum detention period by reference to the
detention under security of the State. It is by virtue of
Government Order No. Home/PB-V/1965 of 2025
dated 30.10.2025 the petitioner’s detention was
extended from 02.11.2025 to 01.05.2026.
15. The petitioner in his writ petition has assailed
his detention on the grounds as set out in para 7 (a) to
(m).
16. In his grounds of challenge, the petitioner
comes forth stating that there is no nexus between the
grounds of detention and the petitioner which have
been fabricated to justify issuance of detention order
as the grounds of detention are nothing but vague,
vexatious and cryptic without baring a mention of any
activity or name of any person with whom the
petitioner was reckoned to have caused disruption of
public order or acting in any manner prejudicial to the
security of the State.
17. By mention of the petitioner’s involvement in
FIR No. 120/2020 and FIR No. 133/2018 and FIR No.
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 8 of 14
135/2018, the petitioner submits that the same are
too distant in terms of reference to furnish any latest
basis for considering his preventive detention custody.
The petitioner submits that other than reference to
three criminal cases, there is no iota of any other
factual reference at the disposal of the District Police,
Budgam to lay a claim for subjecting the petitioner to
preventive detention as none of the cases by reference
to proceedings under section 107 read with section
151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
section 126 read with section 171 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 as being the alleged
basis was being tailored that too without said
proceedings ever taken to logical end before the
Executive Magistrate in calling upon the petitioner to
furnish bond for the requisite purpose.
18. The petitioner also reference to the fact of being
a beneficiary of the bail granted in all the criminal
cases relatable to the three FIRs whereafter the
petitioner is said to be living a normal life as a daily
wager and being picked up only by the District Police
to be condemned by reference to his past and suffer
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 9 of 14
preventive detention in present. The petitioner comes
forth with a loud reference that an important fact has
been screened related to his previous detention in the
year 2019 which came to be quashed by this Court.
19. The petitioner has very prominently referred to
the fact that in order to overreach the discretion of the
criminal court in granting the bail in favour of the
petitioner the preventive detention recourse was
resorted to.
20. The petitioner, acting through his wife, had
addressed a representation dated 13.05.2025 to
respondent No.1 on 14.05.2025 sent through
registered post.
21. The respondents at their end have come
forward defending the detention of the petitioner and
urging this Court to ensure that petitioner deserves to
serve full two years detention period in the backdrop of
his alleged state of activities reported in the dossier on
the basis whereof grounds of detention was formulated
which earned an approval from the Advisory Board’s
assessment.
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 10 of 14
22. When this Court examines facts and
circumstances of the case very closely, an aspect of
immense importance comes out rushing which is to
the fact that first the Senior Superintendent of Police,
(SSP), Budgam screens fact of the grant of bail in
favour of the petitioner by reference to his involvement
in ongoing criminal cases before the competent court
of law. In fact, from a bare reading of the dossier, the
impression that all the three FIRs, i.e. 120/2020,
133/2018 and 135/2018 upon being registered are
still in state of investigation is very loud and clear as if
the investigation of the FIRs of 2018 and 2020 are
frozen in time. If the Senior Superintendent of Police,
(SSP), Budgam is possessing this quality of
information at his disposal, one wonders how this
court can ascribe quality content to the rest of the
information available at the end of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, (SSP), Budgam on the basis
whereof he came forth caricaturing the petitioner in
bad light to the extent of reckoning him a case for
suffering preventive detention custody. The Senior
Superintendent of Police, (SSP), Budgam’s confusion is
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 11 of 14
so apparent to the extent that he was not knowing
whether the petitioner’s alleged unspecified state of
activities was prejudicial to the public order or to the
security of the State and, thus, he comes up with a
split reference to the public order as well as to the
security of the State.
23. The Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP),
Budgam does not mention in his dossier for how long
the petitioner remained in state of arrest by reference
to all the three criminal cases and whether any court
came forward granting bail in the petitioner’s favour
and if so, by virtue of which order and in what context.
A very sweeping reference of expression used by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP), Budgam is that
the petitioner since his release from custody without
explaining which custody the petitioner was earlier
before being released, and this is why this Court is
finding Senior Superintendent of Police, (SSP),
Budgam in poor light in discharge of his duty
maintaining a vigil on the activities of a prospective
detenu to the extent of being ignorant as to which
custody he was in before being released. Same
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 12 of 14
ignorance came to be borrowed literally by the
respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Budgam, who in
the name of formulating grounds of detention is also
lost to figure out about the status of the investigation
of FIRs otherwise highlighted against the petitioner.
The respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Budgam,
thus, lead himself blind-folded to follow the dossier
and order the detention of the petitioner by dropping
out reference to public order and borrowing the
expression security of the State in the name of
improvement to the dossier.
24. This Court is afraid that this type of application
of mind on the part of the Senior Superintendent of
Police, (SSP), Budgam and the respondent No.2-
District Magistrate, Budgam cannot be allowed to
formulate a basis for subjecting a person to preventive
detention custody when there is nothing factual in
terms of context for figuring out the petitioner as a
person whose activities are required to be checked by
recourse only to preventive detention custody and not
by any other means.
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 13 of 14
25. Accordingly, detention Order No.DMB/PSA/14
of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 read with the approval/
confirmation/extension orders passed by the
respondent No.1 with respect to preventive detention
of the petitioner are hereby quashed.
26. The petitioner is directed to be released from
his preventive detention custody from the concerned
Jail wherever the petitioner is being kept detained and
the Superintendent of the concerned Jail shall release
the petitioner forthwith.
27. Detention record perused being in photostat
form needs not to be returned and is to be retained on
the file for record.
28. Disposed of.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
02.07.2026
“Manzoor”
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No
HCP No. 106/2025 Page 14 of 14
