Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Liyakat Ali vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 26 February, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 29.01.2026
Pronounced on: 26.02.2026
Uploaded on: ____________
HCP No.64/2025
Liyakat Ali ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Irfan Andleeb, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
Judgment
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner- Liyakat Ali acting through his wife-
Mst. Shahnaz Sultan came forward with the
institution of present writ petition on 08.04.2025
thereby seeking a writ of habeas corpus for getting
his person out of preventive detention custody
inflicted upon him by virtue of an order passed by
the respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner,
Kashmir.
Page 1 of 5
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Srinagar, by virtue of his communication No.
LGL/Det-PIT/2025/8129-32 dated 04.03.2025,
submitted a dossier by reference to the petitioner-
Liyakat Ali before the respondent No.2- Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir thereby soliciting exercise
of jurisdiction under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(PIT NDPS), 1988.
4. On the basis of the dossier so submitted by the
Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Srinagar, the
respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner,
Kashmir came forward with issuance of detention
Order No. DIVCOM- “K”/53/2025 dated
24.03.2025 thereby ordering the preventive
detention of the petitioner under the PIT NDPS Act,
1988 for the purpose of preventing the petitioner
from indulging in activities falling within the scope
of mischief of PIT NDPS Act. The detention order
was based upon grounds of detention formulated
by the respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner,
Kashmir.
5. In the grounds of detention by reference to
petitioner’s alleged involvement in FIR
Page 2 of 5
No.128/2022 registered by Police Station, Nowgam
for alleged commission of offences under section
8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 came to be the highlight
reference point for projecting the petitioner as a
peddler of psychotropic drugs by referring to
petitioner as an active member of large drug mafia.
6. Pursuant to the detention order, the petitioner
came to be taken into custody and detained in
District Jail, Udhampur where from the petitioner
acting through his wife submitted a written
representation dated 08.04.2025 to the
Government for revocation of his preventive
detention.
7. Coinciding with his representation dated
08.04.2025 the petitioner came forward with the
institution of the present writ petition challenging
the detention on the grounds set out in paragraph-
6 (a) to (m).
8. Counter affidavit to the writ petition came to be
filed on 18.07.2025 wherein- Vijay Kumar Bidhuri
(IAS)- Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir came
forward with a position that pursuant to the
detention order, the petitioner was picked up and
Page 3 of 5
detained on 26.03.2025 wherefrom period of one
year detention came to set in and by that reference
the petitioner is now left with short of one month of
reminder of detention custody when this writ
petition is coming up for its adjudication.
9. The preventive detention of the petitioner, when
this Court examines, is heavily resting upon the
petitioner’s involvement in criminal case borne out
of FIR No.128/2022 in which the petitioner came
to be bailed out, but without taking the trouble of
placing the said bail order of the criminal court of
law before the respondent No.2- Divisional
Commissioner Kashmir, Senior Superintendent of
Police (SSP) Srinagar submitted dossier as if full
presentation of facts was not an obligation on his
part before the detention order making authority.
10. Once the contours and context of the bail
order itself was not available to the Senior
Superintendent of Police (SSP) Srinagar and
consequently with the respondent No.2- Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir, how could the petitioner
be read and reckoned as a potential case for
preventive detention seeing through the lens of his
involvement in FIR No.128/2022. It is here where
Page 4 of 5
the sponsoring as well as detention order making
authority fell in serious error of law and procedure
thereby vitiating the preventive detention order of
the petitioner ab-initio, which accordingly, is,
destined to suffer quashment.
11. Therefore, detention order No. DIVCOM-
“K”/53/2025 dated 24.03.2025 passed by the
respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner,
Kashmir read with confirmation/approval order
passed by the Government are hereby quashed.
12. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his
personal liberty immediately by the Superintendent
of the concerned Jail.
13. Disposed of, accordingly.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
26.02.2026
“Opinder”
Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable: No
Page 5 of 5
