Srinagar, August 31, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of a Srinagar resident accused in the 2017 lynching of a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) outside the historic Jamia Masjid, holding that his detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA) was lawful and supported by specific intelligence inputs regarding fresh terror-recruitment activities following his release.
A single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar upheld the detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/31/2024 dated October 11, 2024, passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, against Bilal Ahmad Lone, ruling that the detention complied with all constitutional and procedural safeguards.
Lone had approached the court through a petition seeking quashment of his preventive custody, contending that the allegations in the grounds of detention were vague, lacked material particulars, and related to past events dating back to 2017, thereby snapping the proximity required under preventive detention laws.
Opposing the plea, the Union Territory administration submitted that Lone had a history of involvement in three criminal cases, including FIR No. 51/2017 registered at Police Station Nowhatta concerning the lynching of a DySP deployed on security duty on the eve of Shab-i-Qadr outside Jamia Masjid on the intervening night of June 22 and 23, 2017. The state maintained that the detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that he had remained continuously in custody and could not have engaged in fresh unlawful acts, the Bench noted from the records that after securing bail in the earlier criminal cases and completing a prior PSA detention term, Lone was released from jail on September 10, 2024. He was subsequently bound down on September 14, 2024, under Sections 126 and 170 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the current detention order was issued on October 11, 2024.
Addressing the contention regarding the vagueness of the grounds of detention, Justice Dhar observed that the detaining authority had cited specific, actionable intelligence regarding his conduct post-release.
“In this regard, a perusal of the grounds of detention would reveal that it has been specifically stated therein that, after the release of the petitioner from custody, credible inputs were received from sensitive sources indicating that a Pakistan-based TRF handler, namely Ahmad Khalid, has again contacted the petitioner through an encrypted messenger application asking him to recruit a fresh module of young boys to undertake terrorist activities. Thus, there are specific allegations in the grounds of detention against the petitioner which pertain to the period when he was released from custody after his earlier period of detention had expired. Even the individual with whom the petitioner is alleged to have established contact has been named in the grounds of detention. The contention of the petitioner that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague is, therefore, without any merit,” the Court observed.
The Bench also dismissed contentions regarding non-supply of material and delay in deciding his representation, noting that the petitioner had executed formal receipts acknowledging the receipt of 58 leaves of detention material and that his representation submitted on October 21, 2024, was duly considered and rejected by the Government on November 4, 2024.
Finding no legal infirmity in the detention proceedings, the High Court held that the petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it accordingly.
Advocate Wajid Haseeb appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Assisting Counsel M. Younis Hafeez appeared vice Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri for the respondents. (KDC)
