J&K High Court Dismisses PSA Detention Challenge After Finding Petitioner Was Released and Re-Detained on Fresh Intelligence
Justice Sanjay Dhar upheld a Public Safety Act detention order against Bilal Ahmad Lone, rejecting claims of continuous custody, non-supply of material, and vague grounds of detention.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Bilal Ahmad Lone challenging his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act. Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly at Srinagar, found that each of the four principal grounds urged by the petitioner — continuous custody, non-supply of detention material, non-consideration of his representation, and vagueness of the grounds of detention — was contradicted by the detention record placed before the court. The detention order, bearing No. DMS/PSA/31/2024, was issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar on 11 October 2024 to prevent the petitioner from engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The Detention and the Challenge Before the Court
Bilal Ahmad Lone was detained by the District Magistrate, Srinagar under the J&K Public Safety Act vide order dated 11 October 2024. The stated purpose was to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Wajid Haseeb, contested the detention on several fronts. He contended that the allegations in the grounds of detention had no nexus with him and were fabricated by the police to justify an illegal detention. He further argued that the grounds were vague and non-existent, making it impossible for any prudent person to mount an effective representation. A significant challenge was that the last alleged activity attributed to the petitioner dated to 2017, creating a gap of more than six years before the 2024 detention order, which the petitioner argued had snapped the required proximity between the alleged conduct and the detention decision.
The petitioner also contended that all material forming the basis of the grounds of detention, including translated versions, had not been supplied to him, and that his representation against the detention order had not been considered in time.
The respondent UT of J&K, represented by Mr. M. Younis Hafeez as assisting counsel, maintained that the detention order was passed after proper application of mind and rested on a reasonable prediction of future behaviour based on the petitioner's past conduct. The respondents produced the full detention record in support of their counter affidavit.
The Petitioner's Background and Prior Proceedings
The detention record showed that the petitioner had been named in three FIRs. FIR No. 51/2017, registered with Police Station Nowhatta, covered offences under Sections 147, 139, 392, 341 and 302 of the RPC and Section 13 of the UAP Act. FIR No. 52/2017, also registered at Police Station Nowhatta, covered Sections 147, 148, 149, 152, 336 and 353 of the RPC. FIR No. 130/2016, registered with Police Station Safakadal, covered Sections 147, 148, 149 and 152 of the RPC.
The respondents specifically alleged that the petitioner was actively involved in the lynching of a Deputy Superintendent of Police who was deployed to ensure the peaceful culmination of a large gathering of devotees at Jamia Masjid on the intervening night of 22–23 June 2017, the eve of Shab-i-Qadr.
Following bail in those cases, the petitioner was detained under the Public Safety Act vide order No. DMS/PSA/103/2022 dated 8 September 2022. He was released from custody on 10 September 2024 after that detention period expired. After his release, he was bound down on 14 September 2024 under Section 126/170 of the BNSS. The impugned detention order was then passed on 11 October 2024.
How the Court Examined Each Ground
Continuous custody claim. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was never released from custody and therefore could not have engaged in any fresh activity prejudicial to the State. Justice Dhar found this claim directly contradicted by the grounds of detention themselves, which recorded that the petitioner was released from custody on 10 September 2024 and was free until the fresh detention order of 11 October 2024. The court held the contention was “not borne out from the record” and was without merit.
Non-supply of material. The petitioner argued that the material, particularly material relating to alleged fresh activities, was not furnished to him. The detention record produced by the respondents showed otherwise. According to that record, the petitioner received a copy of the detention order (one leaf), the notice of detention (one leaf), the grounds of detention (three leaves), a dossier (five leaves), and 48 leaves of other material — a total of 58 leaves. The petitioner had executed a receipt acknowledging receipt of all this material. Justice Dhar held the contention was “misconceived.”
Non-consideration of representation. The petitioner contended his representation against the detention order had not been considered by the respondents. The record showed that the petitioner made a representation to the Government on 21 October 2024. By communication dated 4 November 2024, the petitioner was informed that his representation had been rejected. The petitioner had also executed a receipt confirming he had been informed of this rejection. The court found this ground was similarly without substance.
Vagueness of grounds of detention. This was the most substantive challenge. The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention lacked material particulars and were too vague to permit an effective representation. Justice Dhar examined the grounds of detention and found specific allegations pertaining to the period after the petitioner's release from his earlier detention. The grounds of detention stated that after release, credible inputs were received from sensitive sources indicating that a Pakistan-based TRF handler, named as Ahmad Khalid, had again contacted the petitioner through an encrypted messenger application and asked him to recruit a fresh module of young boys to undertake terrorist activities. The court noted that the individual alleged to have contacted the petitioner was identified by name in the grounds of detention. With specific allegations tied to the post-release period and a named handler, Justice Dhar held the vagueness challenge was without merit.
Why the Proximity Gap Argument Did Not Prevail
The petitioner's argument about the six-year gap between the 2017 incident and the 2024 detention order carried potential weight as a standalone ground. However, the grounds of detention did not rest solely on the 2017 activity. They contained fresh allegations — the contact through an encrypted messenger by the named TRF handler — which arose specifically after the petitioner was released in September 2024. The court's reasoning on the vagueness ground effectively addressed the temporal proximity concern as well: because there was fresh alleged activity after the petitioner's release, the detention order was not being made on stale grounds alone.
Order
Justice Sanjay Dhar found no ground to interfere with the detention order dated 11 October 2024. HCP No. 358/2024 was dismissed as lacking merit. The detention record was directed to be returned to counsel for the respondents. The judgment was pronounced on 29 August 2026.