Srinagar, July 17, KDC: Holding that an alleged offence committed during childhood cannot be allowed to shadow a person’s future through preventive detention, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that acts allegedly committed while a person was a juvenile cannot subsequently form the basis for detention under the Public Safety Act. The Court also held that preventive detention cannot be sustained in the absence of any fresh activity after the detenue’s release on bail.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observations while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Zahid Ahmad Mir, who challenged his detention under an order issued by the District Magistrate, Shopian, in April 2025. The Court quashed the detention and directed his release, if not required in any other case.
The detention order relied primarily on FIR No. 97 of 2022 registered at Police Station Shopian. According to the grounds of detention, the petitioner was alleged to have been associated with overground workers and was accused in a case registered under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He was later granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board in August 2022.
Examining the detention record, Justice Dhar found that although the authorities referred to the petitioner’s release on bail, they failed to identify any subsequent conduct that could justify invoking the extraordinary power of preventive detention. The court noted that neither the grounds of detention nor the supporting record disclosed the particulars of any fresh activity allegedly undertaken after his release. There were no details of the places, nature or circumstances of the alleged conduct, nor any material to substantiate the detaining authority’s assertions.
The Court held that in the absence of such material, the detention order became legally vulnerable and could not be sustained.
Justice Dhar also found a second, independent ground rendering the detention illegal. The record established that the petitioner was below 18 years of age when he was arrested in the 2022 case, a fact supported by his school records. The Court held that an illegal act allegedly committed by a juvenile “does not stigmatize his future” and cannot subsequently be used to justify preventive detention, particularly when a juvenile cannot himself be detained under the Public Safety Act.
Referring to an earlier Division Bench decision in Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K, Justice Dhar reiterated that preventive detention cannot be founded on acts allegedly committed when the person was a juvenile.
Holding that the detention suffered from both the absence of any fresh prejudicial activity after the grant of bail and the impermissible reliance on alleged juvenile conduct, the High Court quashed the detention order and directed the petitioner’s immediate release from preventive custody, provided he was not required in any other case. (KDC)
