Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Danish Farooq Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K Through on 29 April, 2026
Page |1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No.237/2025
CM 4151/2025
CM 7578/2025
Reserved on: 21.04.2026
Pronounced on: 29.04.2026
Uploaded on: 30.04.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced- Full
Danish Farooq Bhat,
S/O Farooq Ahmad Bhat,
(Through his father)
R/O Kulangam, Kupwara.
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Adv. Arafat Rashid.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of J&K through
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.,
Home Department,
Civil Sectt. Srinagar.
2. Director General of Police,
J&K, Srinagar.
3. District Magistrate,
Kupwara.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police,
P.D Handwara.
4. Superintendent District Jail,
Jammu.
...Respondent(s)
Through: GA Faheem Nisar Shah.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner herein -Danish Farooq Bhat (‘detenue’ for short) is
aggrieved of the order passed by the respondent No.3-District
Magistrate, Kupwara (‘DM’ for short), who, in exercise of powers
Page |2
conferred on him under Section 8(1)(a)(i) of the J&K Public
Safety Act, 1978, as detaining authority has detained the petitioner
in order to prevent him from the activities detrimental to the security
of the UT of J&K in terms of detention Order No. 06-DMK/PSA of
2025 dated 29.04.2025 ( ‘impugned order’ for short).
1. The impugned order of detention is challenged, inter alia, on the
grounds that the respondents have not followed due procedure of law
while detaining the detenue under the preventive law which renders
his detention illegal; that the illegal activities attributed to the
detenue are all imaginary, false, baseless, concocted and based on
surmises; that the detenue was illegally implicated in case FIR No.
133/2017 under Section 7/25 Arms Act, registered at Police Station,
Handwara; that the investigation in the said FIR culminated in filing
of a charge-sheet, presented before the court of competent
jurisdiction and the same is pending trial; that after registration of
FIR No. 133/2017 there are no fresh allegations leveled against the
detenue; that the detaining authority has not applied its mind while
preparing the grounds of detention and has acted upon the
recommendations of the Police agencies and has framed the grounds
of detention at their behest; that there is no cogent material to detain
the detenue under the preventive law; that the satisfaction is illusory
and not valid one; that the detention of the detenue is patently illegal
and against the law and deserves to be quashed.
2. Respondents, pursuant to notice after admission of the petition to
hearing, filed their counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the
order of detention is based on a reasonable prediction of future
Page |3
behavior of the detenue; that the detenue’s anti-national and illegal
activities have posed a serious threat to the public safety and security
of UT of J&K; that the preventive detention is devised to afford
protection to the Society and the object is not to punish a man for
having done something but to intercept him before he does it and to
prevent him from doing; and that any preventive measures, even if
they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, do not
contribute in any way to the nature of punishment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the plea of vagueness in
the grounds of detention. It is being argued that the allegations
leveled in the grounds of detention relate to the year 2017 and those
activities have no proximity with the period when the impugned
order was passed for the purpose of preventive detention unless any
fresh activity is not attributed to the petitioner. It is also contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not mentioned in
the impugned detention order that normal law was ever invoked
before taking recourse to preventive detention law and that too was
applied merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It was
prayed to upset the impugned order being unsustainable for the
aforestated grounds.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, supporting the
detention order, contended that the detenue’s continuous anti-
national and illegal activities, made it imperative to detain the
detenue under the provisions of Public Safety Act and there were
sufficient grounds available for such detention. It is further
contended that the live link is still sustaining, as the detenue is still
involved in the anti-national activities and the adverse reports
Page |4
projected by the sponsoring agency to recommend the detenue for
preventive detention under the provisions of the Public Safety Act.
5. Heard, perused the detention record as has been made available by
learned counsel for the respondents and considered the same.
6. The detaining authority-DM has based the detention order on the
grounds that the detenue was supporter of banned organization of
‘Lashker-e-Toiba’, indulged in subversive activities; that he was
involved in a case registered at Police Station, Handwara in the year
2017 vide FIR No.133/2017 under section 7/25 IA Act, in which
charge-sheet was laid before the competent court of law and the
petitioner was enlarged on bail in the said case; that the detenue was
influenced by the radical ideology and was indulged in subversive
activities; and that in view of terrorist attack in Baisaran Valley of
Pahalgam and to curb his activities, it was imperative to detain the
detenue to provide peaceful environment in the region.
7. The allegations leveled against the detenue that besides being
involved in an old case of the year 2017, he is still inclined towards
anti-national activities particularly in view of recent terrorist attack
in Baisaran Valley of Pahalgam and is influenced by radical
ideology, is all vague as no reference has been made to any specific
activity. In such a situation the detenue would not be in a position to
submit an effective and a meaningful representation before DM or
the competent authority in the Government, to have a fresh look into
the matter.
8. The Supreme Court of India and also the various High Courts
including this Court, consistently hold that preventive detention on
vague, irrelevant or ambiguous grounds is illegal and violates Article
Page |5
22(5) of the Constitution. The detaining authority must provide
specific details to allow the detenue to make an effective and
meaningful representation. Failure to furnish the aforesaid details
such as dates, time and locations of alleged activities renders the
detention a ‘mechanical’ exercise of power, a serious invasion of
personal liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Therefore, non-existent, irrelevant or vague grounds that cannot be
understood, the detention cannot be justified. Reference can be made
to the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases reported in (i)
(2023) 9 SCC 587 titled ‘Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana &
Ors.‘; and (ii) ‘Chaju Ram Vs. State of J&K’ reported as AIR 1971
SC 263.
9. In Ameena Begum‘s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed in para-49 that:-
“49.The other aspect requiring some guidance for
detaining authorities and on which we wish to
comment is that there is no requirement in law of
orders of detention being expressed in language
that would normally be considered elegant or
artistic. An order of detention, which is capable of
comprehension, has to precisely set forth the
grounds of detention without any vagueness. The
substance of the order and how it is 36
understood by the detenu determines its nature.
An order in plain and simple language providing
clarity of how the subjective satisfaction was
formed is what a detenu would look for, since the
detenu has a right to represent against the order
of detention and claim that such order should not
have been made at all. If the detenu fails to
comprehend the grounds of detention, the very
purpose of affording him the opportunity to make
a representation could be defeated. At the same
time, the detaining authority ought to ensure that
the order does not manifest consideration of
extraneous factors. The detaining authority must
be cautious and circumspect that no extra or
additional word or sentence finds place in the
order of detention, which evinces the human
Page |6factor – his mindset of either acting with personal
predilection by invoking the stringent preventive
detention laws to avoid or oust judicial scrutiny,
given the restrictions of judicial review in such
cases, or as an authority charged with the notion
of overreaching the courts, chagrined and
frustrated by orders granting bail to the detenu
despite stiff opposition raised by the State and
thereby failing in the attempt to keep the detenu
behind bars”.
10. Again the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chaju Ram’s case (supra) has
observed and enunciated that:-
“Even as to the grounds, we have something to
say. The grounds charge him with having
conspired with some leaders of Democratic
Conference and having incited landless people of
R.S.Pura Tehsil to forcibly occupy the land
comprised in Nandpur Mechanised Farm and to
have persuaded them to resist violently any
attempt to evict them. No details of the leaders of
the Conference or of the persons incited or the
dates on which he conspired or incited the
squatters or the time when such conference took
place, are mentioned. It would be impossible for
anybody to make a representation against such
grounds. These grounds, on the authorities of this
Court, too numerous to be cited here, must be
held to be vague. Therefore on both the twin
grounds, namely, that he was deprived of his right
to make a representation and also because the
grounds in themselves were very vague, we must
hold that there was no compliance with the law as
laid down in the Jammu and Kashmir
Preventive Detention Act. The result, therefore,
is that the detention must be declared to be
unlawful and Chaju must be declared to be
entitled to his liberty. He is ordered to be released.
The detenu was questioned by us and he
expressed a desire that he may not be released in
Delhi, because he has no means of going back.
He asked to be released in Jammu. We direct
therefore that he shall be taken back to the place
where he was in detention in Jammu and released
within the shortest possible time.”
11. It is the further argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that
the grounds of impugned detention order is a verbatim copy of the
dossier and no other material has been considered by the detaining
Page |7
authority which speaks volumes about the non-application of mind
on the part of the detaining authority which does not justify the
preventive detention and the detention order requires quashment.
12. In a case titled ‘Jai Singh & Ors. v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir‘ reported as AIR 1985 SC 764, it has been observed that if
the detention order is verbatim copy of the dossier, it would amount
to non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Para-13 of the
judgment being relevant is reproduced as under:-
“13. Applying the settled legal position to the
facts of the present case, I find that the order
impugned cannot stand as it is based on grounds
of detention, which is only verbatim copy of
police dossier. The order of detention, for the
reasons, exhibit total non- application of mind on
the part of detaining authority and therefore, the
petition is allowed and the detention order No.
PSA/104 dated 16.10.2020 passed by the District
Magistrate, Kathua-respondent No. 2 directing
the detention of Balbir Chand S/O Rana R/O
Chack Drab Khan, Tehsil and District Kathua is
quashed. Respondents are directed to release the
detenue forthwith, provided he is not required in
connection with any other case”.
13. On perusal of dossier prepared and submitted by the police to the
detaining authority and the impugned order passed by him, based
thereon, it is found that the impugned order, particularly the grounds
therefor, and the grounds mentioned in the dossier by the police are
almost verbatim, except for some cosmetic changes. The impugned
order is, thus, not sustainable on this account alone.
14. Except the case FIR registered in the year 2017, wherein detenue
was alleged to have attended the funeral prayer of Lashker-e-Toiba
killed terrorist namely Sabzar on 06.06.2017 along with a pistol and
Page |8
later surrendered before Security Forces at Kulangam, there is no
specific allegation against the detenue as to how and in what manner
his participation in the funeral prayer can be a threat to the security
of UT of J&K.
15. The vague grounds cannot be based to deprive a citizen of his
cherished fundamental right of liberty so as to detain him. Mere
apprehension that he was involved in some criminal activities in the
year 2017, with no fresh, proximate activities, there is no
justification for preventive detention of the detenue in the year 2025
there being no live link and stale grounds.
16. In the case of “Sama Aruna Vs. State of Telangana and others,”
reported in (2018)12 SCC 150 against a detention order dated
23.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Police Rachakonda
Commissionerate, Rangareddy District, Telangana, the detenue,
through his wife, had preferred a writ petition challenging preventive
detention which came to be dismissed and the matter reached before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in an appeal. The order of
preventive detention was based upon the grounds of detention which
came to be referred to six criminal cases against the detenue, four of
which are of 2007, one of 2013 and one of 2014. The detention came
to be questioned on the plea of grounds being stale. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India came to consider the relevance of 9 to 14
years’ old incidents resulting in FIRs through a grossly belated order
of detention. In paragraphs 16 & 17, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India came up with the following reference:-
“16. Obviously, therefore, the power to detain,
under the Act of 1986, can be exercised only
for preventing a person from engaging in,
Page |9or pursuing or taking some action which
adversely affects or is likely to affect
adversely the maintenance of public order;
or for preventing him from making
preparations for engaging in such activities.
There is little doubt that the conduct or
activities of the detenu in the past must be
taken into account for coming to the
conclusion that he is going to engage in or
make preparations for engaging in such
activities, for many such persons follow a
pattern of criminal activities. But the
question is how far back? There is no doubt
that only activities so far back can be
considered as furnish a cause for preventive
detention in the present. That is, only those
activities so far back in the past which lead
to the conclusion that he is likely to engage
in or prepare to engage in such activities in
the immediate future can be taken into
account. In Golam Hussain alias Gama v.
Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Ors.
(1974)4 SCC 530, this Court observed as
follows:
“5. No authority, acting rationally, can be
satisfied, subjectively or otherwise, of
future mischief merely because long
ago the detenu had done something
evil To Rule otherwise is to sanction a
simulacrum of a statutory
requirement. But no mechanical test
by counting the months of the interval
is sound. It all depends on the nature
of the acts relied on, grave and
determined or less serious and
corrigible, on the length of the gap,
short or long, on the reason for the
delay in taking preventive action, like
information of participation being
available only in the course of an
investigation. We have to investigate
whether the causal connection has
been broken in the circumstances of
each case.
Suffice it to say that in any case, incidents
which are said to have taken place nine to
fourteen years earlier, cannot form the basis
for being satisfied in the present that the
detenu is going to engage in, or make
preparation for engaging in such activities.
P a g e | 10
17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid
detention order was passed on grounds
which are stale and which could not have
been considered as relevant for arriving at
the subjective satisfaction that the detenu
must be detained. The detention order must
be based on a reasonable prognosis of the
future behavior of a person based on his past
conduct in light of the surrounding
circumstances. The live and proximate link
that must exist between the past conduct of a
person and the imperative need to detain him
must be taken to have been snapped in this
case. A detention order which is founded on
stale incidents, must be regarded as an order
of punishment for a crime, passed without a
trial, though purporting to be an order of
preventive detention. The essential concept
of preventive detention is that the detention
of a person is not to punish him for
something he has done but to prevent him
from doing it…”
17. For what has been held by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted case
laws and having regard to what has been observed hereinabove, the
impugned detention order does not sustain in the eyes of law. The
impugned detention order passed on vague grounds, verbatim copy
of police dossier and stale grounds with no live link between the
alleged activities in the year 2017 and the detention order passed in
the year 2025, is found liable to be quashed on these counts.
18. Viewed thus, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
detention order No. 06-DMK/PSA of 2025 dated 29.04.2025, is,
hereby quashed. As a result, the detenue namely Danish Farooq Bhat
S/O Farooq Ahmad Bhat R/O Kulangam, Kupwara, is directed to be
released from the custody forthwith, if not required in any other
case(s).
19. HCP No. 237/2025 is, thus, disposed of as allowed along-with
connected application(s).
P a g e | 11
20. Detention record is directed to be returned back to the learned
counsel for the respondents.
( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Srinagar
29.04.2026
Muzammil. Q
Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No