HC upholds PSA detention despite bail, says preventive action justified by continuing security threat

29/07/2026

JAMMU, Jul 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Pulwama resident under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), ruling that the grant of bail in criminal cases does not preclude authorities from invoking preventive detention where there is material indicating a continuing threat to the security of the State.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismis-sed a habeas corpus petition filed by Sakib Akbar Waza (25) of Gulshanpora, Tral, through his father, Mohammad Akbar Waza, challenging the detention order dated May 1, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama. The detenue is presently lodged in District Jail, Kathua.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Sheikh Aamir Mushtaq contended that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind as it was allegedly based solely on the police dossier. He further argued that the detention order, grounds of detention and supporting documents were not supplied to the detenue, depriving him of his constitutional right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation. It was also submitted that the grounds were vague, were not explained in a language understood by the detenue, and that the authorities had ignored the fact that he had already been granted bail in the criminal cases forming the basis of the detention.
Representing the Union Territory administration, Government Advocate Jehangir Ahmad Dar submitted that all constitutional and statutory safeguards had been complied with. He argued that the detention order, grounds of detention and all supporting material had been supplied to the detenue within the prescribed time and had been read over and explained to him in Kashmiri and Urdu. The respondents also maintained that the detaining authority had independently applied its mind before arriving at the requisite subjective satisfaction for invoking preventive detention.
After examining the detention record, Justice Azeem observed that the detenue had been furnished with 46 leaves comprising the detention order, grounds of detention, police dossier and other supporting material. The execution report showed that the documents had been read over and explained to him in Kashmiri and Urdu and that translated copies of the grounds of detention and police dossier had also been supplied. The detenue acknowledged receipt by signing the execution report.
The court also noted that the Advisory Board had examined the detention and found it to be in conformity with Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the provisions of the Public Safety Act. Following the Board's opinion, the Government confirmed the detention under Section 17(1) of the Act.
According to the material placed before the detaining authority, Waza was earlier arrested in FIR No. 153 of 2020 arising out of an anti-militancy operation in which a militant was killed and was subsequently released on bail. He was also alleged to be involved in FIR No. 24 of 2021, relating to an encounter in which two terrorists of Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind were killed and a large cache of arms and ammunition was recovered.
The judgment records that, despite the criminal proceedings and repeated preventive actions under the CrPC and BNSS, the authorities alleged that the detenue continued to indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State, including sharing information regarding the movement of security forces, providing logistical support to militants and maintaining links with banned terrorist organisations.
Rejecting the contention that preventive detention was unwarranted because ordinary criminal law had already been invoked, the High Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Haradhan Saha vs State of West Bengal, holding that preventive detention is a precautionary measure distinct from punitive detention and may be ordered before, during or after criminal prosecution, including after the grant of bail or even acquittal, if the statutory requirements are satisfied.
The court held that the preventive proceedings initiated shortly before the detention order established a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It further observed that constitutional courts, while exercising judicial review over preventive detention, do not sit as appellate authorities and cannot substitute their opinion once the order is based on relevant material and procedural safeguards have been complied with.
Finding no violation of constitutional or statutory safeguards and no infirmity in the detention process, Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed the petition and upheld the detention order under the Public Safety Act.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty