The Court further held that the reference to the Annual Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra could not cure the defect, as the next Yatra had also concluded peacefully.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Suhail Fayaz Najar challenging Detention passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, whereby he was detained on the satisfaction that his activities were prejudicial to the security of the State. The petitioner sought quashing of the order and his immediate release from preventive detention.

A Bench of Justice M.A. Chowdhary, while allowing the petition, observed,

"Preventive custody is detention of an individual based upon his anticipated future conduct. It cannot be justified merely by pointing to a general security situation or a sensitive public event unless the material before the detaining authority establishes the necessary nexus between the individual and the apprehended threat."

The Court further observed,

"Even the next SANJAY, 2026 has also been recently concluded peacefully."

Background:

The petitioner's case was that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and had been passed on the basis of vague, stale and irrelevant material. It was submitted that the petitioner had earlier figured in FIR under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act registered at Police Station Awantipora, but was subsequently enlarged on bail by the competent court dropping these charges. Thereafter he was detained in proceedings under Sections 107/151 CrPC and was released by the competent Magistrate on furnishing bond.

The respondents defended the detention order, submitting that the detaining authority, after carefully examining the dossier and material placed before it, arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction that the petitioner, if allowed to remain at large, was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

It was contended that the petitioner's release in proceedings under Sections 107/151 CrPC twice did not operate as a bar to the exercise of power under the Public Safety Act, as preventive detention is a distinct jurisdiction.

Court's Observation

The Court examined the detention record and noted that the detenu was found involved in FIR under the UAPA, wherein after discharge he was admitted to bail. The grounds of detention reflected that the detenu was working as an Over Ground Worker for banned terrorist organisations by way of rendering logistic support, and that during questioning he had confessed to working as an OGW for one terrorist who was later neutralised by security forces.

The Court observed that preventive detention constitutes an extraordinary encroachment upon personal liberty and that the constitutional safeguards surrounding it are required to be strictly complied with. The Court noted that Article 22(5) mandates communication of the grounds of detention and requires that the detenu be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation.

The Court observed, "The existence of subjective satisfaction does not mean that the Court must accept every recital contained in the detention order as conclusive. The Court is entitled to examine whether there was material before the detaining authority which could reasonably lead to the satisfaction recorded by it."

The Court found that once a person has been released on bail, the detaining authority is required to consider whether there exists some fresh or continuing material demonstrating a real and proximate likelihood of his engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

The Court relied upon Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana (2018) 12 SCC 150, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated that preventive detention must rest upon a reasonable prognosis of future conduct based upon past conduct viewed in the surrounding circumstances, and that there must be a live and proximate link between the past conduct and the imperative need for detention.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the material relied upon against the petitioner did not disclose any sufficiently specific or proximate activity subsequent to his release on bail. The Court observed,

"The subsequent detention of the petitioner under Sections 107/151 Cr.PC requiring Bonds for good conduct, also does not advance the case of the respondents."

On the reference to the Amarnath Yatra, the Court observed that the sensitivity of the Yatra and the obligation of the State to maintain its peaceful conduct are undoubtedly matters of great importance, but a general apprehension arising from the sensitive nature of an event cannot substitute for specific material connecting the particular detenu with a threat to the security of the State.

The Court also found that the grounds of detention lacked the requisite degree of specificity. The Court observed,

"General expressions such as the petitioner's activities being prejudicial to the security of the State, without disclosing the precise acts, circumstances and material which demonstrate such propensity, do not afford a meaningful opportunity to the detenue to meet the allegations."

The court thus allowed the petition and quashed the detention order. The Court directed the respondents to release the detenu, forthwith from preventive detention, if his custody was not required in connection with any other case or proceedings in accordance with law.

Case Title: Suhail Fayaz Najar v. Union Territory of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click here to read/download Judgment