Jammu and Kashmir High Court
HCP/99/2025 of SAKEENA BANO Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME) on 5 March 2026
of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR HCP No. 99/2025 Sakeena Bano …..Petitioners Through: Mr. Owais Ashraf Shah, Advocate. Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others .….Respondents Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No. 99/2025
Sakeena Bano
…..Petitioners
Through: Mr. Owais Ashraf Shah, Advocate.
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K and Others
.….Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting
counsel.
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
JU D GM EN T
0 5 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 6
1. Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
as
well
as
for
the
respondents. Perused the respective
side’s pleadings and the documents
accompanying therewith. Also perused
the detention record produced from the
end of the respondents.
2. The petitioner-Sakeena Bano acting
through her husband-Siraj-u-din Khan
came forward with the institution of the present writ petition on 14.05.2025
while being in the state of preventive
detention custody slapped upon her by
the
respondent
No.2-Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir by reference to
the
Prevention
of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substance (PITNDPS) Act, 1988.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police
(SSP), Budgam, by virtue of a letter No.
PSA-Cell/Dossier/2025/276-79 dated
08.03.2025, had submitted a dossier
to the respondent No.2- Divisional
Commissioner, Kashmir by reporting
alleged
activities
of
the
petitioner
reckoned to fall within scope of mischief of PITNDPS Act, 1988 warranting her preventive detention which consequently resulted in issuance of the detention order No.
DIVCOM“K”/62/2025
dated
03.04.2025
ordering
preventive
detention of the petitioner and her
confinement
in
the
Central
Jail,
Srinagar.
4. In
the
grounds
of
detention
so
formulated,
the
respondent
No.2-
Divisional
Commissioner,
Kashmir
refers the petitioner to be a notorious
illicit drug peddler of the area, running an illegal trade of narcotics since long time and in the process becoming principal dealer of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by developing contacts with drug peddlers operative in the area.
5. The arrest of the petitioner by reference to FIR No.46/2023 under sections 8/20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (PITNDPS) Act, 1985 by the Police Station Chadoora,
has
been
referred
to
portray
the
petitioner’s antecedents warranting her
detention.
6. Pursuant to the preventive detention
order above referred, the petitioner had come to be taken into custody on 05.04.2025 to be confined in the Central Jail, Srinagar wherein the petitioner is on verge of completing her one year detention period which came to be served upon her by virtue of Government
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.
Order
No. Home/PB- V/743/2025 dated 03.05.2025 passed by the Home Department, UT of Jammu & Kashmir.
7. The period of detention fastened upon the petitioner was from 05.04.2025 till 04.04.2026.
8. The preventive detention of the petitioner has been assailed on the grounds as set out in the writ petition.
9. The counter affidavit to the writ petition came to be filed on 07.10.2025.
10. When this Court examines the grounds of detention, this Court finds that the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir is at a loss to figure out that if the alleged reported act of commission of offence had resulted in booking of the petitioner in FIR No.46/2023, then how come the alleged state of activities of the petitioner on the basis whereof she was being subjected to preventive detention have gone begging for registration of a criminal case/s against her.
11. The State cannot be heard to condone culpable and criminal state of activities of a subject warranting punitive punishment and switch over to preventive detention remedy as that would amount to judicial function to be taken over by the Executive.
12. This Court is convinced that resort to PITNDPS Act, 1988 has been made only to short circuit the criminal trial outcome of the petitioner by subjecting her to suffer punitive punishment before the verdict of the criminal court.
13. In the light of the aforesaid scenario, the preventive detention of the petitioner is held to be illegal, as such, Detention
Order
No. DIVCOM“K”/62/2025 dated 03.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, is hereby quashed with immediate effect. The petitioner is ordered to be restored to her personal liberty by her release from the concerned Jail for which the
Superintendent concerned to carry out the compliance.
14. Disposed of, as indicated above.
( RAHUL BHARTI ) JUDGE Srinagar
05.03.2026
Muzammil Q
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No