Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Sakeena Bano vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 5 March, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No. 99/2025
Sakeena Bano
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Owais Ashraf Shah, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Others
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting
counsel.
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
05.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as for the
respondents. Perused the respective
side’s pleadings and the documents
accompanying therewith. Also perused
the detention record produced from the
end of the respondents.
2. The petitioner-Sakeena Bano acting
through her husband-Siraj-u-din Khan
Page 1 of 7
2
came forward with the institution of the
present writ petition on 14.05.2025
while being in the state of preventive
detention custody slapped upon her by
the respondent No.2-Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir by reference to
the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance (PITNDPS) Act, 1988.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police
(SSP), Budgam, by virtue of a letter No.
PSA-Cell/Dossier/2025/276-79 dated
08.03.2025, had submitted a dossier
to the respondent No.2- Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir by reporting
alleged activities of the petitioner
reckoned to fall within scope of mischief
of PITNDPS Act, 1988 warranting her
preventive detention which
consequently resulted in issuance of
the detention order No.
Page 2 of 7
3
DIVCOM”K”/62/2025 dated
03.04.2025 ordering preventive
detention of the petitioner and her
confinement in the Central Jail,
Srinagar.
4. In the grounds of detention so
formulated, the respondent No.2-
Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir
refers the petitioner to be a notorious
illicit drug peddler of the area, running
an illegal trade of narcotics since long
time and in the process becoming
principal dealer of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances by developing
contacts with drug peddlers operative in
the area.
5. The arrest of the petitioner by reference
to FIR No.46/2023 under sections
8/20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance (PITNDPS) Act,
1985 by the Police Station Chadoora,
Page 3 of 7
4
has been referred to portray the
petitioner’s antecedents warranting her
detention.
6. Pursuant to the preventive detention
order above referred, the petitioner had
come to be taken into custody on
05.04.2025 to be confined in the
Central Jail, Srinagar wherein the
petitioner is on verge of completing her
one year detention period which came
to be served upon her by virtue of
Government Order No. Home/PB-
V/743/2025 dated 03.05.2025 passed
by the Home Department, UT of Jammu
& Kashmir.
7. The period of detention fastened upon
the petitioner was from 05.04.2025 till
04.04.2026.
8. The preventive detention of the
petitioner has been assailed on the
grounds as set out in the writ petition.
Page 4 of 7
5
9. The counter affidavit to the writ petition
came to be filed on 07.10.2025.
10. When this Court examines the
grounds of detention, this Court finds
that the respondent No.2-Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir is at a loss to
figure out that if the alleged reported
act of commission of offence had
resulted in booking of the petitioner in
FIR No.46/2023, then how come the
alleged state of activities of the
petitioner on the basis whereof she was
being subjected to preventive detention
have gone begging for registration of a
criminal case/s against her.
11. The State cannot be heard to
condone culpable and criminal state of
activities of a subject warranting
punitive punishment and switch over to
preventive detention remedy as that
Page 5 of 7
6
would amount to judicial function to be
taken over by the Executive.
12. This Court is convinced that resort
to PITNDPS Act, 1988 has been made
only to short circuit the criminal trial
outcome of the petitioner by subjecting
her to suffer punitive punishment
before the verdict of the criminal court.
13. In the light of the aforesaid
scenario, the preventive detention of the
petitioner is held to be illegal, as such,
Detention Order No.
DIVCOM”K”/62/2025 dated
03.04.2025 passed by the respondent
No.2-Divisional Commissioner,
Kashmir, is hereby quashed with
immediate effect. The petitioner is
ordered to be restored to her personal
liberty by her release from the
concerned Jail for which the
Page 6 of 7
7
Superintendent concerned to carry out
the compliance.
14. Disposed of, as indicated above.
( RAHUL BHARTI )
JUDGE
Srinagar
05.03.2026
Muzammil Q
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No
Page 7 of 7