The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside a preventive detention order issued under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), holding that the authorities failed to identify any fresh activities by the detenue after his release on bail. The Court also ruled that allegations relating to acts allegedly committed while the individual was a juvenile could not legally form the basis of a later preventive detention order.
Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered the judgment on July 17, 2026, while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Zahid Ahmad Mir against the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an order dated April 28, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Shopian, placing Zahid Ahmad Mir under preventive detention under the Public Safety Act on the ground that such detention was necessary to prevent activities allegedly prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory.
Before the High Court, the petitioner challenged the detention order on several grounds. It was argued that the detention order reflected non-application of mind, the grounds of detention were vague, and no fresh activity had been attributed to him after he was granted bail in FIR No. 97/2022. The petitioner also contended that the authorities had failed to supply all the material relied upon and had not properly informed him of his right to make a representation against the detention.
The respondents opposed the petition, maintaining that the detenue had been associated with activities affecting security and that all constitutional and statutory safeguards had been followed while issuing the detention order. They further claimed that the detention records and supporting material had been supplied to him.
Court's Observations
During the hearing, the Court noted that the petitioner's primary challenge centred on the absence of any fresh allegation after his release on bail in August 2022. The Court examined the grounds of detention and found that they mainly referred to allegations connected with FIR No. 97/2022, in which the petitioner had later been released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the detention order did not disclose what specific conduct after the grant of bail had prompted the authorities to invoke preventive detention.
The bench observed,
"What were the fresh activities that compelled the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention are not forthcoming from the perusal of the grounds of detention."
The Court further found that neither the detention grounds nor the official record contained particulars regarding the alleged fresh activities, including where or when they had supposedly taken place. Without such supporting material, the Court held, the detention order could not withstand judicial scrutiny.
The judgment states that
"Without there being any material on record to support the assertion of the detaining authority... the impugned order of detention becomes vulnerable and... deserves to be set aside."
Juvenile Status Also Considered
The High Court also examined the petitioner's age at the time of the events forming the basis of FIR No. 97/2022. The record showed that his date of birth was October 15, 2006, making him a juvenile when he was arrested and later released on bail in that case.
Justice Dhar held that alleged acts committed while a person was a juvenile cannot later become the foundation for preventive detention under the Public Safety Act.
The bench observed,
"An illegal act committed by a juvenile cannot form basis for issuance of a detention order subsequently, more particularly when the juvenile cannot be detained under the Public Safety Act."
Relying on an earlier Division Bench decision in Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K & Ors., the Court concluded that the detention order was legally unsustainable.
Court's Decision
Allowing the habeas corpus petition, the High Court quashed the preventive detention order issued against Zahid Ahmad Mir. The Court directed that he be released from preventive custody immediately, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.
It also ordered that the detention record be returned to the respondents' counsel.
Case Details
Case Title: Zahid Ahmad Mir v. UT of J&K and Others
Case Number: HCP No. 91/2025
Judge: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Decision Date: July 17, 2026
-300x169.webp)
