Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohammad Rafi Najar vs Ut Of J&K And Others (Home) on 25 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)
Case No: LPA No. 220/2025
Reserved on : 12.02.2026
Pronounced on:25.02.2026
n Uploaded on: 25.02.2026
Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced : Full
Mohammad Rafi Najar
.Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad Makroo, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K and others (Home)
..... Respondent(s)...
Through: Mr. Illyas Nazir Laway, GA
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
PER OSWAL-J
1. The appellant was detained pursuant to Order No.
06/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 01.04.2024, issued by the District
Magistrate, Anantnag (respondent No. 2), in exercise of powers
conferred under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Aggrieved by the said order of
detention, the appellant challenged the same by filing HCP No.
LPA No. 220/2025 Page 1 of 5
132/2024 titled “Mohd. Rafi Najar v. Union Territory of J&K and
others“. However, the challenge did not succeed, as the writ petition
preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed by the learned writ
Court vide judgment dated 22.08.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the
“impugned judgment”).
2. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment, the appellant has challenged
the same on the grounds that the learned Writ Court has failed to
appreciate that the procedural safeguards envisaged under the
Constitution of India, as well as those mandated under the Act, were
not complied with by respondent No. 2. Appellant submits that the
detention order is vitiated by the absence of a proximate nexus. There
exists no subsisting link between the stale incidents alleged and the
current necessity for preventive detention. It is further urged that the
detention order is founded on vague, indefinite and non-specific
allegations, thereby depriving the appellant of his valuable right to
make an effective representation against the detention. The appellant
has also contended that the learned writ court has failed to consider
the vital aspect that the appellant had earlier been detained under the
Public Safety Act vide Detention Order No. 70/DMA/PSA/DET/2022
dated 08.12.2022, which came to be revoked on 27.01.2023, i.e., after
about two months. It is submitted that in the absence of any fresh or
compelling material, the appellant could not have been detained again
after more than a year, vide detention order dated 01.04.2024, on the
basis of stale, non-existent and vague allegations.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the submissions as
recorded above by this Court.
LPA No. 220/2025 Page 2 of 5
4. Per contra, Mr. Illyas Nazir Laway, learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that the order of detention has been passed
on valid and cogent grounds, strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, but he fairly conceded that the appellant was
not arrested prior to the issuance of order of detention. It is contended
that all procedural safeguards were duly complied with and that the
learned Writ Court has rightly appreciated the factual and legal
aspects of the matter while dismissing the writ petition. Mr. Illyas
Nazir Laway, learned G.A, has produced the detention record.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
record.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that the dossier submitted by
respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2, which formed the basis for the
detention order dated 01.04.2024, was predicated on a patent factual
error. Both the sponsoring agency and the detaining authority
explicitly stated that there was a ‘likelihood’ of the appellant securing
bail in FIR No. 219/2022. In para-3 of the writ petition, it was pleaded
by the appellant that he was arrested on 03.04.2024 and this fact was
never replied by respondents in their counter-affidavit. Rather in
grounds of detention also, it is nowhere mentioned that appellant was
arrested, though it is stated that there is every likelihood that the
individual along with other accused will manage to get bail. It is
conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant
was not in jail, when the order of detention came to be passed on
01.04.2024. This contradiction demonstrates a mechanical exercise of
LPA No. 220/2025 Page 3 of 5
power and a complete non-application of mind. Consequently, the
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated, rendering
the impugned order legally unsustainable.
7. Furthermore, the appellant specifically pleaded before the learned
Writ Court and reiterated before this Court as well that he was
previously detained under an order dated 08.12.2022 predicated on
FIR No. 160/2013. That prior order was subsequently revoked by the
Government vide Order No. Home/PB-V 162 of 2023 dated
27.01.2023. Despite the appellant placing the revocation order on
record, the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, failed to
specifically deny or traverse these categorical averments. Under the
settled principles of pleadings, an allegation not specifically denied is
deemed to have been admitted. This suppression of the prior
revocation by the detaining authority indicates a lack of bona fides
and a failure to consider relevant material. It is, thus, evident that the
sponsoring agency failed to place the complete and correct material
before the detaining authority and, instead, presented inaccurate facts
which appear to have weighed with the detaining authority while
arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction to detain the appellant.
Such suppression and misrepresentation of material facts vitiate the
detention order. On this ground as well, the order of detention cannot
be sustained in law. In ‘Pramod Singla versus Union of India‘, 2023
INSC 344, the Hon’ble Apex court has observed as under:
46. At the sake of repetition, we find it important to state
that in cases of preventive detention, every procedural
irregularity, keeping in mind the principles of Article 21 and
Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, must be accrued in
favour of the detenue. In the present case at hand, the appellant
detenue herein has been supplied with illegible documents in a
foreign language. It is also important to note that these are theLPA No. 220/2025 Page 4 of 5
very same documents that the authorities have relied upon to
detain the appellant herein.
(emphasis added)
8. We have minutely perused the judgment rendered by the learned Writ
Court. A bare reading thereof reveals that the pivotal issues, as
noticed and discussed by us hereinabove, have unfortunately escaped
the consideration of the learned Writ Court, thereby rendering the
impugned judgment unsustainable.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion
that the judgment impugned in the present appeal is unsustainable in
the eyes of law and is, accordingly, set aside. Resultantly, the order of
detention bearing No. 06/DMA/PSA/DET/2024 dated 01.04.2024,
issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag (respondent No. 2), being
legally untenable, is also set aside. The appellant shall be released
forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other
case.
10.The record shall be returned to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
11.Disposed of as above along with connected CM(s) if any,
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
25.02.2026
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes.
Whether order is reportable? No. MADAN LAL VERMA 2026.02.25 13:23 LPA No. 220/2025 I attest to the accuracy and Page 5 of 5 integrity of this document
