SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of Mohd. Asgar alias Tola, holding that the criminal cases cited against him by the authorities were either too old to have a live and proximate link with the need for preventive detention or had subsequently been settled and quashed. The court directed that Asgar be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case.
Justice M A Chowdhary passed the judgment on August 20, 2026, allowing Asgar’s habeas corpus petition and setting aside detention order No. PSA 32 of 2023 dated November 24, 2023, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu under Section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.
Asgar, son of Bashir Ahmed and resident of Ward No. 3, Der Chowadi, Tehsil Bahu, Jammu, had been placed under preventive detention on the ground that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order cited eight FIRs registered between 2002 and 2023 as the basis for the District Magistrate’s satisfaction.
The detention order, however, was executed nearly two-and-a-half years after it was issued, on April 23, 2026. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the delay itself rendered the detention unsustainable, while the government maintained that the delay was attributable to Asgar because he had been absconding and evading arrest. The authorities said the detention warrant was executed only after his arrest and that there had been no lapse on their part.
The case was heard by Justice M A Chowdhary. Asgar was represented by Senior Advocate Pranav Kohli, assisted by Advocate Aftab Malik, while the Union Territory administration was represented by Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh. The judgment was reserved on August 11 and pronounced on August 20, 2026.
This was Asgar’s second round of litigation against the same detention order. He had initially challenged the PSA order at the pre-execution stage through HCP No. 130/2024. The High Court dismissed that petition on March 7, 2025. He then filed an appeal before a Division Bench, but the LPA was dismissed for non-prosecution on May 20, 2026. The present habeas corpus petition, HCP No. 33/2026, was subsequently filed through his wife, Naseem Choudhary.
The District Magistrate had relied upon eight criminal cases registered at Trikuta Nagar and Channi Himmat police stations over a period extending from 2002 to 2023. The oldest, FIR No. 259/2002, concerned the murder of Noor Ahmad. Asgar and six other accused were acquitted by the Sessions Court, Jammu, on October 31, 2007.
FIR No. 119/2011 related to theft and other allegations, but Asgar’s name was cleared during investigation. In FIR No. 105/2012, concerning an attempt to murder by an unlawful assembly, his involvement was again not found during investigation. In FIR No. 39/2014, he was named as an accused in offences under Sections 429, 342, 382, 147, 148 and 506 RPC, but the investigation had been stayed by the High Court on May 12, 2014.
The remaining cases were registered in the context of disputes within Asgar’s family. FIR No. 45/2021 concerned a land dispute arising from a complaint by his cousin. FIR No. 182/2021 concerned missing Latha and Masavi from revenue records, but the court noted that Asgar was not a revenue official and had no role in maintaining the records.
The court further noted that FIR No. 45/2021, FIR No. 120/2022 and FIR No. 174/2023, all lodged by Asgar’s cousin, had been settled amicably between the parties and subsequently quashed by the High Court. The three quashing orders were passed on July 1, 2025, November 19, 2025 and July 22, 2025 respectively.
The High Court held that the cases dating back to 2002 and continuing through 2014 were too remote to form the basis of a preventive detention order issued in 2023. It observed that although past conduct can be considered while assessing whether preventive detention is necessary, there must be a live and proximate link between that conduct and the apprehension of future activity prejudicial to public order.
Justice Chowdhary distinguished between ordinary breaches of law and order and conduct that threatens public order. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in K.K. Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court noted that cases affecting public order are those with the potential to disturb peace and tranquillity or disrupt the even tempo of community life.
The court also relied upon the Supreme Court judgments in Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana and Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana. Those judgments, the High Court noted, establish that past incidents can support preventive detention only where they retain a causal connection with the likelihood of prejudicial activity in the immediate future. Stale incidents, without such a connection, cannot constitute a valid basis for preventive detention.
The court rejected, however, Asgar’s separate contention that he had not been informed of his constitutional right to make a representation against the detention. It found that the communication dated November 24, 2023 had informed him that he could make a representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority. The court therefore held that there was no violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution on this ground.
In its final assessment, the court held that the mere fact that eight FIRs had been registered against Asgar could not, by itself, justify the extraordinary remedy of preventive detention. Four of the FIRs were registered before 2014 and were too stale to have a proximate connection with the detention order, while the three later cases concerning family property disputes had been settled and quashed. The court also found no demonstrated propensity in the cases relied upon by the authorities to disturb public order.
“Consequently, impugned detention order is quashed,” the court held, allowing the petition and directing that Asgar be released forthwith if he was not required in any other case. The detention record was ordered to be returned to the counsel representing the respondents.
The judgment, delivered in HCP No. 33/2026 along with CM No. 3958/2026 and CM No. 2924/2026, is a speaking and reportable judgment.
