Emphasising the rehabilitative philosophy underlying juvenile justice, the Court observed that an offence allegedly committed during juvenility does not permanently stigmatise a child and cannot later be transformed into a ground for preventive detention, particularly when a juvenile could not have been detained under the PSA at the relevant time.

Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observations while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Zahid Ahmad Mir, challenging Detention Order issued by the District Magistrate, Shopian, placing him under preventive detention on the ground that he was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory.

The detention order was primarily founded upon an FIR registered for offences under Section 307 IPC, Sections 7/27 of the Arms Act and Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. According to the grounds of detention, the detenue, along with certain alleged overground workers, had conspired to target non-local labourers on the directions of a Pakistan-based handler.

During execution of the alleged conspiracy, a firearm accidentally discharged, injuring one of the alleged associates, resulting in registration of the FIR.

The petitioner contended that he had been released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shopian and that the detention order was based solely on allegations pertaining to the said FIR. It was argued that no fresh prejudicial activity had been attributed to him after his release on bail and that, in any event, the alleged acts related to a period when he was admittedly a juvenile.

Examining the grounds of detention, the Court found that although the detenue had been released on bail in August 2022, the detention order did not disclose any fresh activity whatsoever undertaken by him thereafter. Neither the grounds of detention nor the detention record contained particulars of any subsequent conduct warranting invocation of preventive detention. The Court observed,

"Without there being any particulars with regard to the alleged activities of the petitioner after having secured bail... and without there being any material on record to support the assertion of the detaining authority in this regard, the impugned order of detention becomes vulnerable."

More significantly, the Court noted that official school records established the detenue's date of birth as 15 October 2006, making him below eighteen years of age when he was arrested. Referring to the rehabilitative object of juvenile justice legislation, Justice Dhar held that criminal acts allegedly committed during juvenility cannot continue to haunt a person after attaining majority through the device of preventive detention. The Court observed,

"An illegal act committed by a juvenile does not stigmatize his future and likewise, 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. Therefore, the detenue could not have been detained under preventive laws for the activities alleged committed by him at the time when he was a juvenile."

In arriving at the conclusion, the Court relied upon the Division Bench decision in Tahir Riyaz Dar v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors. reiterating that the reformative philosophy governing children in conflict with law is fundamentally incompatible with the use of preventive detention based solely upon acts committed during juvenility.

Holding that the detention order was founded on stale allegations relating to the detenue's juvenile years and that the authorities had failed to demonstrate any fresh prejudicial activity after his release on bail, the Court quashed Detention Order and directed the detenue be released from preventive custody forthwith, provided he was not required in connection with any other case.

Case Title: Zahid Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 305

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment