SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the preventive detention of a Srinagar man under the Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that the detention was based on vague grounds and directing that he be released from jail forthwith.
Justice Rahul Bharti passed the judgment in a petition filed by Altaf Ahmad Dar alias Altaf Sahil, who had challenged Detention Order No. DMS/PSA/41/2025 dated September 30, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar. The court also quashed the subsequent approval, confirmation and extension orders relating to his detention and directed the Superintendent of the concerned jail to restore his personal liberty.
The judgment in HCP No. 326/2025 was pronounced on August 27, 2026, with the petitioner represented by advocate Nida Nazir. The respondents, including the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, were represented by Maha Majeed, assisting counsel for senior additional advocate general Mohsin S Qadri.
The petition was filed on November 11, 2025, from District Jail, Poonch, through the petitioner’s wife, Razia Sultan, seeking his release from preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.
According to the judgment, the case originated from a dossier prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, and forwarded to the District Magistrate on September 1, 2025. The dossier alleged that Dar, a degree holder in music and fine arts, had been influenced by radical ideology and had come into contact with members and associates of LeT/TRF. It further alleged that he had provided logistic support, food and shelter to militants.
The dossier also referred to allegations that Dar was associated with activities in the Barthana-Qamarwari area and had interacted with Mehraj-ud-Din alias Jan Peer, whom the authorities described as an Islamic preacher and former militant. It further alleged that during a joint operation in June 2022, Dar and his associates were apprehended and that photographs recovered from his house and mobile phone showed militants preparing food and staying at his residence.
The authorities had also relied upon FIR No. 127 of 2022 registered at Police Station Parimpora, besides proceedings for good behaviour initiated on February 8 and April 25, 2025, and a Patrol Book Report dated July 27, 2025.
Based on the dossier, the District Magistrate, Srinagar passed the detention order on September 30, 2025, directing Dar’s arrest and confinement in District Jail, Poonch. The detention warrant was executed on October 4, 2025, after which the authorities stated that the detention order, grounds and accompanying material were supplied to him and explained.
The detention order was approved by the government on October 8, 2025 and referred to the Advisory Board. The Board, in its opinion dated November 3, 2025, found sufficient grounds for preventive detention and also considered a representation submitted on Dar’s behalf by his family members. Subsequently, the Home Department confirmed the detention through Government Order No. Home/PB-V/2115 of 2025 dated November 14, 2025, initially for six months from October 4, 2025 to April 3, 2026. The detention was later extended and was stated to continue for two years, up to September 3, 2027.
Before the High Court, Dar challenged the detention on several grounds. His counsel argued, among other things, that the District Magistrate had proceeded on the basis of the expression “security of the State” despite the changes made to the Public Safety Act after the constitutional reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner also contended that the material relied upon by the detaining authority had not been properly disclosed to him.
The petitioner specifically alleged that the beat book reports referred to in the grounds of detention had not been supplied to him and that the material relating to FIR No. 127 of 2022, including the final investigation report, had not been furnished, thereby preventing him from making an effective representation. He further argued that the allegations lacked specific dates, places and other factual particulars and were therefore vague.
The respondents, in their counter affidavit, defended the detention and maintained that Dar and his associates had been apprehended during a joint operation on June 12, 2022. The authorities stated that Dar had allegedly admitted that militants had been staying at his house since November 2021. The FIR registered at Police Station Parimpora invoked Sections 153-A, 153-B and 505 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The High Court, however, found a crucial deficiency in the material placed before it. It noted that neither the grounds of detention nor the respondents’ counter affidavit disclosed what had ultimately happened in FIR No. 127 of 2022, including whether a charge sheet or closure report had been filed and what the status of the criminal case was.
The court observed that if the dossier itself was silent on the final outcome of the FIR, “the quality of information at the disposal of Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar to frame a dossier for seeking preventive detention of the petitioner became seriously suspect from the very first stroke of writing of the dossier.”
The court also found that the District Magistrate had not sought further information from the SSP regarding the outcome of the criminal case, despite the FIR being relied upon prominently in the dossier.
“Both the grounds of detention as well as the counter affidavit from the end of respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Srinagar are found to be tightlipped with respect to fact as to whether the petitioner came to be charge sheeted for his alleged involvement in FIR No. 127 of 2022 and, if so, the status of the criminal case in a court of law,” Justice Bharti observed.
The court further held that once the reference to the 2022 FIR was taken out, the remaining material did not establish concrete facts showing that Dar had violated the conditions of the bonds executed by him in February and April 2025 so as to justify preventive detention.
“If the reference to FIR No. 127 of 2022 in the context of petitioner is taken out, then literally what is left in the dossier as well as the grounds of detention is more a chalk rather than cheese,” the court said, adding that the grounds “self-certify themselves to be vague”.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vakil Singh vs State of J&K and Another, the High Court noted that “grounds” in preventive detention must contain conclusions of fact along with the factual material on which those conclusions are based.
Justice Bharti concluded that the grounds relied upon for Dar’s detention did not meet that requirement. “The expression ‘grounds of detention’ has nothing stated factually in its entire length and breadth except fictitious references on the basis whereof to deprive a person of his fundamental right to personal liberty cannot be allowed to sustain,” the court held.
The court accordingly held the detention to be “seriously flawed being based on vague grounds in every sense of the term” and quashed the September 30, 2025 detention order along with the subsequent approval, confirmation and extension orders.
It directed that Dar “be restored to his personal liberty” and ordered the Superintendent of the concerned jail to release him forthwith. The petition was thereafter disposed of.
