J&K&L High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Of Man Accused In Alleged Lynching Of Deputy Superintendent Of Police

The Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order, holding that the grounds of detention were specific and the procedural safeguards had been complied with.

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Bilal Ahmad Lone challenging detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, placing him under preventive detention to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the petition, observed,

"The respondents have contended that the impugned detention order has been passed after proper application of mind and the same is based on reasonable prediction of future behaviour considering the petitioner's past conduct in the light of surrounding circumstances. It has been further contended that the detenue was actively involved in the gruesome lynching of a Dy. SP rank officer who was deployed to ensure peaceful culmination of huge gathering of devotees at Jamia Masjid on the eve of Shab-i-Qadr on the intervening night of 22-23/06/2017."

The detenue, Bilal, was found involved in as many as three FIRs. According to the grounds of detention, the petitioner was enlarged on bail in these cases, whereafter he was detained under the Public Safety Act in terms of detention order issued in 2022. He was released from custody in 2024 after the expiry of the period of detention. The grounds further stated that the petitioner did not mend his ways, and he was bound down in terms of Section 126/170 of BNSS. The impugned order of detention was then passed on 11.10.2024.

The petitioner challenged the detention on multiple grounds, including that he was never released from custody, that material was not furnished, that his representation was not considered, and that the grounds of detention were vague.

Court's Observation:

The Court examined each of the grounds raised by the petitioner. On the contention that the petitioner was never released from custody, the Court found that the detention record clearly showed that the petitioner was released from custody on 10.09.2024 after the expiry of the period of detention and was at liberty until 11.10.2024 when the impugned detention order was passed.

The Court observed,

"From 10.09.2024 to 11.10.2024, the petitioner was not in custody. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was never released from custody, is not borne out from the record, as such, the same is without merit."

On the contention regarding non-supply of material, the Court noted that the detention record revealed that the petitioner had received copies of the detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier and other material, totaling 58 leaves. The Court observed,

"The detention record produced by the respondents reveals that the petitioner has received copy of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier (05 leaves) and (48) leaves of other material (total 58 leaves)."

On the contention regarding non-consideration of the representation, the Court found that the petitioner had made a representation on 21.10.2024 and was informed of its rejection vide communication dated 04.11.2024. The Court observed,

"The petitioner, it appears from the record, has executed a receipt evidencing the fact that he has been informed about the rejection of his representation. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that his representation against the impugned order of detention has not been considered by the respondents is without any substance."

Addressing the contention that the grounds of detention were vague, the Court found that specific allegations were made against the petitioner. The Court observed,

"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."

The Court noted that even the individual with whom the petitioner was alleged to have established contact had been named in the grounds of detention. The Court observed,

"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."

On a cumulative consideration of the findings above Justice Dhar dismissed the habeas corpus petition, finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention.

Case Title: Bilal Ahmad Lone v. UT of J&K & Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Appearances

Petitioner: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate

Respondents: Mr. M. Younis Hafeez, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG

Click here to read/download Judgment