Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Zakir Hussain Bhat vs Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (Home … on 19 February, 2026
Author: Javed Iqbal Wani
Bench: Javed Iqbal Wani
S. No. 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP 192/2024
Date of pronouncement 19-02-2026
Uploaded on 23-02-2026
ZAKIR HUSSAIN BHAT ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Shabir Ahmad Dar, Advocate.
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME DEPARTMENT) ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
19.02.2026
ORAL
1. The petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution has sought a writ of Certiorari for quashing of detention order
No. 08/DMA/PSA/DET/2024, Dated 20-04-2024 (for short “the impugned
order”) passed by respondent 2 (for short “the detaining authority”) under and
in terms of provisions of JK Public Safety Act 1978 (for short “the Act of
1978).
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on multiple grounds
urged in the petition.
3. Reply affidavit has been filed by the respondents to the petition,
wherein the petition is being opposed on the premise that the petitioner has
been an Over Ground Worker(OGW) of the terrorist organization Let/TRF
having been providing assistance in the year 2022-2023 to terrorists including
one terrorist namely Mohammad Uzair Khan Khan, who got killed and that
thereafter the petitioner though was bound down under relevant law and
1|Page
HCP 192/2024
released on a surety bond yet the secret information received revealed that the
petitioner after his release on a surety bond, has been in close touch and
contact with OGW’s and other associates of the LeT out fit and that the
detaining authority, after being furnished with the dossier and the said
material thereto derived subjective to satisfaction that the activities of the
petitioner are pre-judicial to the security of the State/UT of Jammu and
Kashmir, necessitating his preventive detention and consequently, ordered the
detention of the petitioner in terms of order dated 20-04-2024, with a view to
prevent him from acting in any manner, which is pre-judicial to the security
of State/UT of Jammu and Kashmir.
It is further stated that upon preventive detention of the petitioner, the
warrant of detention was executed on 24-04-2024 by ASI Surinder Kumar of
Police Station Bejbehara, and the contents of the order of detention as well as
and grounds of detention were read over and explained to him in the language
which he fully understood and in lieu thereof, the petitioner put his signatures
on the execution report, while stating further that the entire material relied
upon by the detaining authority for detention of the petitioner was furnished
to the petitioner and was also informed of his right of making a representation
against the order of detention to the District Magistrate and to the
Government.
It is further stated that the Government approved the detention of the
petitioner in terms of order dated 29-04-2024 and the advisory board as well
expressed its opinion in favor of the detention of the petitioner on 14-05-
2024, where after the order of detention came to be confirmed by the
Government on 24-05-2024.
2|Page
HCP 192/2024
It is lastly stated that in the process of ordering of preventive detention
of the petitioner, the detaining authority fulfilled and complied with all
statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The first ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner in line with
the grounds urged in the petition while making his submissions is that the
petitioner was not furnished the detention papers as also the material in the
language he understood as he could not read and write English and that no
activity post years 2022-2023 had been attributed to the petitioner
necessitating his detention thereby there exists no proximate live link
between the impugned order as well as the activities of the years 2022-2023.
It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the material relied
upon by the detaining authority was not provided to him, as such, he was
rendered incapable of making an effective representation against his detention
as also on account of non-furnishing of the said material in the language he
understood.
5. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondents would controvert the
contentions of the counsel for the petitioner and, in support thereof, would
heavily rely upon the counter affidavit filed to the petition as also detention
record produced for examination of the Court.
6. Insofar as the aforesaid first plea of the counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, the detention record bears testimony to the fact that the officer
who has executed the detention order upon the petitioner has submitted an
execution report dated 24-04-2024 bearing the signature of the petitioner,
suggesting that the petitioner has received 22 leaves of the material consisting
3|Page
HCP 192/2024
of detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier of
detention, copies of FIR and statement of witnesses etc. also signifying that
the executing officer has read over and explained the contents of the detention
warrant and grounds of detention in the Urdu and Kashmiri language to the
petitioner in respect whereof the petitioner has affixed his signatures thereto.
Therefore, in this view of the matter, the aforesaid plea of the counsel for the
petitioner is found to be factually unfounded, more so in absence of any
pleading filed by the petitioner in opposition to the counter affidavit filed by
the respondents.
7. Insofar as the aforesaid next plea of the counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, the perusal of the grounds of detention as also the detention record
produced by counsel for the respondents tends to show that post the years
2022-2023, the petitioner admittedly has been bound down under relevant
law, owing to his activities found to be pre-judicial to the security of the
State/UT of Jammu and Kashmir. Further closer examination of the detention
record also reveals that the agencies have collected information regarding the
activities of the petitioner and furnished the same to responsing agency post
the years 2022-2023 having been found to be in close contact with OGWs of
various terrorist organizations. Therefore, it cannot, but be said, that not only
the sponsoring agency, but also the detaining authority, have had been alive to
the activities of the petitioner post the years 2022-2023, and based upon such
activities, ordered preventive detention of the petitioner as a preventive
precautionary measure in a reasonable anticipation. The said activities post
the years 2022-2023, particularly in the year 2024 prior to the passing of
detention order admittedly signify a live proximate link between the said
activities of the petitioner and the impugned order. Thus, in this view of the
4|Page
HCP 192/2024
matter the aforesaid plea of the counsel for the petitioner is found to be
legally untenable.
8. The last plea of the counsel for the petitioner that the material relied
upon by the detaining authority was not furnished to the petitioner stands
already adverted to in the preceding paras, in that, it has been found from the
perusal of the detention record that the petitioner stands furnished the material
relied upon by the detaining authority and in lieu of the receipt of the said
material, the petitioner admittedly has affixed his signatures on the execution
report forming part of the detention record. Therefore, the instant plea of the
counsel for the petitioner also is found to be factually baseless.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that the object of law preventive
detention has been threadbare deliberated upon and discussed by the Apex
Court in series of Judgments including in case titled as “Haradhan Saha vs.
State of W.B” reported in 1975(3) SCC 198 where in at para 32 and 33
following has been held;
“32. The power of preventive detention is qualitatively
different from punitive detention. The power of preventive
detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable
anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a
parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even
if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be
launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive
detention, may be made before or during prosecution. An
order of preventive detention may be made with or without
prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even
acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of
preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also
not a bar to prosecution.
33. Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive detention and
prosecution are not synonymous. The purposes are different.
The authorities are different. The nature of proceedings is
different. In a prosecution an accused is sought to be punished
for a past act. In preventive detention, the past act is merely
5|Page
HCP 192/2024
the material for inference about the future course of probable
conduct on the part of the detenu”.
10. Viewed thus, for aforesaid reasons the impugned order is found to be
legally valid not calling for any interference.
11. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed.
12. The detention record produced by the counsel for the respondents is
returned back in the open Court.
(JAVED IQBAL WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
19.02.2026
Sarvar
Whether the order is Speaking Yes.
Whether the order is reportable Yes/No
6|Page
HCP 192/2024
