Jammu and Kashmir High Court
HCP/247/2025 of UMAR FAYAZ MIR Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ANR. (HOME) on 1 April 2026
Page 1 of 4 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on : 09.02.2026 Pronounced on : 01.04.2026 HCP No. 247/2025 Umar Fayaz Mir, Aged 26 years S/o Fayaz Ahmad Mir, R/o Nadhihal Mir Mohalla, District Bandipora Through his father Fayaz Ahmad Mir, S/o Gh. Qadir Mir, R/o
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on : 09.02.2026
Pronounced on : 01.04.2026
HCP No. 247/2025
Umar Fayaz Mir, Aged 26 years
S/o Fayaz Ahmad Mir,
R/o Nadhihal Mir Mohalla, District Bandipora Through his father Fayaz Ahmad Mir, S/o Gh. Qadir Mir, R/o Nadhihal Mir Mohalla, District Bandipora
…..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Imam Abdul Muizz, Advocate
Vs
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.
2. District Magistrate, Bandipora.
.…. Respondents
Through: Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGEMENT
01. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
02. Perused the writ petition and the annexures therewith and also the counter affidavit filed in response.
03. The detention record produced also scanned thoroughly. Sr. No. 214
04. By virtue of an Order No. 10/DMB/PSA of 2025 dated 07.05.2025, the respondent No. 2
– District Magistrate, Bandipora, acting in exercise of jurisdiction under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 directed the preventive detention of the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order which consequently led to the detention of the petitioner whereupon the petitioner came to be subjected to suffer one year detention period.
05. The institution of the writ petition took place on 10.07.2025 when the petitioner having been arrested with effect from 10.05.2025 had spent almost two months of custody in the detention.
06. The basis which has led to the detention of the petitioner is stated in the dossier wherein the petitioner is being referred in terms of its involvement in criminal cases starting from FIR No. 24/2016 of the Police Station Aragam, FIR No. 26/2016 of Police Station Aragam, FIR No. 27/2016 of Police Station Aragam & FIR No. 30/2020 of Police Station Aragam.
07. By cumulative reading of the petitioner’s involvement in the aforesaid criminal cases, the petitioner came to be tagged as a as solid/strong propagator of banned ISJK terrorist organization with a criminal bent of mind advocating anti-national activities at various platforms in the district.
08. In this regard, even previous detention of the petitioner effected on 10.01.2021 in terms of Order No. 2/DMB/PSA of 2021 dated 08.01.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Bandipora came to be highlighted which detention came to be quashed in the writ petition WP(Crl) No. 26/2021 by this Court in terms of judgment dated 29.12.2021 holding that the petitioner’s alleged reported activities did not constitute as the one prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order as the same was on the Law and Order side for which he was already undergoing a criminal trial.
09. In the previous detention, the same set of affairs were figuring to be read against the petitioner second time detention purpose and if the same did not hold good with respect to previous detention of the petitioner, then the present detention order also has to fail as it is a case of old wine in new bottle without any independent material coming on record except generalized tagging of the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, this Court holds detention Order No. 10/DMB/PSA of 2025 dated 07.05.2025 along with approval/confirmation order as illegal and are hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released from preventive detention custody from the District Jail, Udhampur or whichever jail he is held confined for which purpose the Superintendent concerned jail to release the petitioner forthwith.
11. Disposed of.
12. Detention record to be returned back to the counsel representing the respondents.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR
01.04.2026
Opinder
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No