Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Javid Ahmad Wani vs Union Terrtiory Of J And K And on 29 April, 2026
Serial No. 02
SUPPLEMENTARY LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP 316/2025
JAVID AHMAD WANI ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Arshad Andrabi, Advocate
Mr. Zahid Ameen Khan, Advocate
Mr. Rayees Maqbool, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRTIORY OF J AND K AND ...Respondent(s)
ORS.
Through: Mr. Haris Khan, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
29.04.2026
1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present writ petition, seeks
quashment of detention order bearing No. Div.Com-K/33/2025 dated
21.07.2025, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in
exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short
“the Act”), whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive
detention.
2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the petition, is that the
impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional
safeguards guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 22(5) of the
Constitution of India. It is contended that the grounds of detention are
HCP 316/2025 Page 1 of 6
vague, non-specific, and lack any proximate nexus with the alleged
activities attributed to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detention order is
primarily based on FIR No. 07/2025 registered at Police Station Bomai
under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act, wherein the petitioner was
allegedly found in possession of 05 grams of heroin. It is not disputed
that the petitioner was arrested in February 2025 and was subsequently
granted bail on 03.03.2025 by a competent court of law.
4. It is further contended that after his release on bail, the petitioner
strictly adhered to all the conditions imposed upon him and did not
indulge in any unlawful activity. The petitioner even executed a bond
before the Executive Magistrate undertaking good conduct. It is argued
that in absence of any fresh activity, the preventive detention is wholly
unjustified and has been resorted to only to circumvent the bail granted
by a competent court. That only 11 pages out of 31-page dossier was
supplied to the petitioner thereby prejudicing the petitioner in making
his representation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
detention order has been passed on the basis of material supplied by
the sponsoring authority, indicating that the petitioner was involved in
illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and posed a threat to society. It is
argued that the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction
after due application of mind and that all procedural safeguards have
been complied with. That the order impugned after obtaining opinion
from advisory board stood confirmed by the Home Department on
20.08.2025 thereby detaining the petitioner for a period of one year
HCP 316/2025 Page 2 of 6
w.e.f. 25.07.2025 till 24.07.2026, therefore, petitioner cannot claim
that the order suffers from non application of mind.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record produced.
7. Preventive detention, by its very nature, is an exception to the normal
rule of personal liberty and, therefore, must be strictly construed. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India, 1982 AIR SC
710, has held that laws of preventive detention must be applied with
extreme care and caution, as they directly impinge upon the liberty of
an individual.
8. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the grounds of
detention bear a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the same are
primarily based on a solitary FIR registered against the petitioner.
There is no material placed on record to indicate any subsequent
activity after the petitioner was released on bail. The law in this regard
is well settled that there must be a live and proximate link between
past conduct and the necessity of detention. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v.
State of Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 225, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that if there is undue delay or absence of proximity, the detention order
stands vitiated.
9. In the present case, the last alleged activity pertains to February 2025,
whereas the detention order has been passed in July 2025. No
intervening or fresh activity has been attributed to the petitioner. This
breaks the live link required to sustain preventive detention, as
HCP 316/2025 Page 3 of 6
reiterated in Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana Cr. Appeal no 885 of
2017 D.O D 3rd of May 2017.
10. Another significant aspect is that the petitioner had already been
granted bail by a competent court of law. Preventive detention cannot
be used as a substitute for punitive action or to nullify a bail order. In
Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate Etah, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court categorically held that detention orders cannot be passed merely
because the accused has been granted bail. The same principle has
been reiterated in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 5 SCC 244,
wherein it was held that unless there is cogent material indicating
likelihood of future prejudicial activity, detention is unjustified.
11. The respondents have failed to place on record any such material
demonstrating that the petitioner was likely to indulge in similar
activities after his release on bail. The detention order, therefore,
appears to have been passed to circumvent the judicial process.
12. The next issue pertains to the vagueness of the grounds of detention.
The grounds supplied to the petitioner do not disclose specific
instances or particulars indicating his involvement in ongoing illicit
trafficking. Vague and indefinite grounds are violative of
constitutional safeguards. In Jai Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir,
AIR 1985 SC 764, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that vague
grounds deprive the detenue of his right to make an effective
representation.
13. It is also evident from the record that all the material relied upon by
the detaining authority, including the dossier, was not supplied to the
petitioner. This has seriously prejudiced his right to make an effective
HCP 316/2025 Page 4 of 6
representation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Icchu Devi Choraria v.
Union of India, 1980 4 SCC 531, has held that non-supply of relevant
documents vitiates the detention order. Further, the right to make a
representation is a valuable constitutional right guaranteed under
Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Such right must be real and effective.
In Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, it has been held that
communication of grounds must be meaningful and not illusory.
14. The plea of the respondents that the detaining authority arrived at
subjective satisfaction does not hold much weight in absence of
material indicating due application of mind. Mechanical exercise of
power vitiates detention. In PebamNingolMikoi Devi v. State of
Manipur, AIR Online SC 253, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
non-application of mind renders the detention illegal.
15. Lastly, the subsequent confirmation of the detention order by the
Government does not cure the initial illegality. In Union of India v.
Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622, it has been held that if the initial
order is bad, subsequent approval cannot validate it.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that:
ï‚· The detention order lacks proximate and relevant material;
ï‚· There is no live link between the alleged activity and the order of
detention;
ï‚· The detention has been used as a substitute for criminal prosecution;
ï‚· The grounds of detention are vague and non-specific;
HCP 316/2025 Page 5 of 6
ï‚· The petitioner has been deprived of his right to make an effectiverepresentation.
17. Consequently, the impugned detention order bearing No. Div.Com-
K/33/2025 dated 21.07.2025 and subsequent confirmation order No.
Home/PB-V/1605 of 2025 dated 20.08.2025 are held unsustainable in
law and liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
18. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from preventive
custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any
other case.
19. Copy of the order shall be communicated to the respondents for
immediate compliance. Record is returned back to the Government
counsel.
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
29.04.2026
Akhil DevHCP 316/2025 Page 6 of 6
