The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Srinagar resident under the Public Safety Act (PSA), observing that vague allegations and old criminal cases cannot by themselves justify continued detention.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Zubair Altaf Sheikh’s wife, Nafeeza Zubair, and set aside detention order No. DMS/PSA/40/2025 issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, on September 12, 2025.
The court directed the authorities to release Zubair immediately, unless he was required in any other case.
Court Questions Fresh Detention Based on Old Case
The authorities had accused Zubair of working as an Over Ground Worker for banned outfits Lashkar e Taiba and The Resistance Front. He was also accused of motivating local youth to join separatist groups.
The detention order referred to FIR No. 15/2022 registered at Bemina police station under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Ranbir Penal Code and the Indian Arms Act.
Advocate S. R. Hussain, representing Zubair, submitted that his client had been granted bail in the case in September 2022. An earlier PSA detention order based on the same FIR had also been quashed by the High Court on April 3, 2024.
The counsel argued that the authorities had revived the same case in 2025 without establishing a fresh and immediate connection between the alleged activities and the need for preventive detention.
He further submitted that Zubair had moved to Gurugram, where he worked as a store manager with Blinkit Commerce Private Limited. Salary slips were placed before the court to support his claim that he was working outside Jammu and Kashmir during the period covered by some of the allegations.
Allegations Found General and Unsubstantiated
Opposing the petition, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri argued that the latest detention was based not only on the 2022 FIR but also on a fresh dossier prepared in August 2025, including discreet intelligence reports alleging continued subversive activities.
After examining the record, Justice Chowdhary held that the authorities could not rely on stale material after the earlier detention order had already been quashed.
“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 court observed.
The Bench noted that the detention grounds did not specify the alleged acts, their dates and locations, or the identities of the people Zubair was allegedly said to have influenced.
“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 court said.
Employment Records Not Considered
The court also noted that Zubair’s employment in Gurugram had not been rebutted by the authorities.
“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,” the Bench said.
The High Court further held that authorities had failed to supply important documents relied upon in passing the detention order, including police Beat Books and Patrol Books dated May 21, June 4 and August 4, 2025.
According to the court, withholding these records impaired Zubair’s constitutional right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation against his detention.
