Srinagar, Sept. 17, KDC: Observing that preventive detention cannot rest on vague classifications and stale allegations, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the detention of a Srinagar resident under the Public Safety Act (PSA), noting that the authorities failed to rebut evidence showing he was working as a store manager in Gurugram during the period he was accused of subversive activities in the Valley.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition, Justice M. A. Chowdhary set aside detention order No. DMS/PSA/40/2025 dated September 12, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, against Zubair Altaf Sheikh, a resident of 90-Feet Soura. The Bench directed authorities to release him forthwith from preventive custody, provided his detention is not required in any other case.
The petition was instituted by Zubair Altaf through his wife, Nafeeza Zubair, challenging his detention under the PSA. The detaining authority had justified the order by alleging that Zubair was acting as an “Over Ground Worker” (OGW) for banned outfits LeT and TRF, accusing him of motivating local youth to join separatist groups. The detention was anchored to FIR No. 15/2022 registered at Police Station Bemina under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Ranbir Penal Code, and the Indian Arms Act.
Advocate S. R. Hussain, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Zubair was granted bail in the 2022 case in September of that year. An earlier PSA detention order passed against him on September 30, 2022, based on the same FIR, was formally quashed by the High Court on April 3, 2024.
Counsel argued that authorities improperly revived the same three-year-old case in 2025 without demonstrating any proximate link, while completely ignoring that Zubair had moved out of Jammu and Kashmir to work as a Store Manager with Blinkit Commerce Private Limited in Gurugram, Delhi NCR, placing salary slips on record to substantiate his employment.
Opposing the plea, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri argued that the fresh detention order was not solely based on the 2022 FIR, but on a fresh dossier prepared in August 2025 incorporating discreet intelligence reports that pointed to continuous subversive involvement.
Scrutinizing the record, Justice M. A. Chowdhary observed that the state could not revive stale material where the live and proximate link had snapped, particularly after the earlier detention order had already been quashed by the court.
“The allegation that the detenue was an over ground worker ‘OGW’ of LeT/TRF banned outfits and had been motivating youth to join separatist groups, however, remains substantially general in character. The grounds of detention do not disclose with sufficient specificity the particular acts allegedly committed by the detenue, the dates and places of such activities, the identity or particulars of the persons allegedly motivated by him, or any other concrete circumstance demonstrating his continuing involvement in such activities. A mere description of a person by a particular label, without particulars of the acts which constitute the alleged prejudicial conduct, cannot by itself furnish an adequate basis for preventive detention,” the Bench noted.
“Another significant circumstance is that the detenue was working as a Store Manager at Gurugram, Delhi. The assertion that he was in Delhi in connection with his employment has remained un-rebutted. Petitioner has placed on record documents in support of his assertion of being in Gurugram NCR Delhi, having received wages for the period regarding which discreet reports were made foundational basis to pass impugned detention order. While employment at another place cannot, by itself, negate allegations of prejudicial activity, it was nevertheless a relevant circumstance which required due consideration by the detaining authority, while assessing whether there existed a continuing and immediate threat warranting preventive detention,” the Court said.
The Bench further held that the non-supply of vital documents, specifically police Beat Books and Patrol Books dated May 21, June 4, and August 4, 2025, which were relied upon by the detaining authority, severely impaired the detenue’s constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make an effective representation against his detention.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court ruled that preventive detention cannot become an instrument of routine suspicion or a substitute for the ordinary criminal legal process.
Finding the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate vitiated by stale material, non-supply of relied-upon records, and vague assertions, the court quashed the detention order and directed Zubair’s immediate release. (KDC)
