J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Grounded Solely on FIR Registered When Detenu Was a Juvenile

Justice Sanjay Dhar held that a juvenile’s past FIR cannot anchor a Public Safety Act detention order, particularly when no fresh post-bail activity was shown by the detaining authority.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has quashed a preventive detention order issued under the Public Safety Act against Zahid Ahmad Mir, a resident of Shopian. Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly, found two independent grounds fatal to the detention: the detaining authority had identified no fresh activity by the detenu after his bail in FIR No.97/2022, and the FIR itself had been registered at a time when Zahid was a juvenile. The judgment, pronounced on 17 July 2026 in HCP No.91/2025, directs his immediate release from preventive custody.

The Detention Order and the Challenge

District Magistrate, Shopian, issued detention order No.03/DMS/PSA of 2025 on 28 April 2025, placing Zahid Ahmad Mir in preventive detention to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The petitioner challenged the order by way of a habeas corpus petition.

Before the High Court, the petitioner raised several grounds. Counsel pressed most heavily on two: first, that the grounds of detention mentioned no fresh activity after Zahid’s release on bail; and second, that the foundational FIR had been registered when Zahid was a juvenile and could not, in law, sustain a subsequent preventive detention order.

The respondents — the Union Territory of J&K and others — contested the petition through a reply affidavit. They described the detenu as a “hardcore OGW of Let/HM terrorist organizations and facilitator of activities of these militant outfits.” They contended that the entire relied-upon material had been furnished to the detenu, read over and explained to him, and that he had been informed of his right to file a representation. They maintained that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees had been fulfilled.

What the Grounds of Detention Actually Said

The grounds of detention alleged that in 2022, Zahid and associates Abid Ahmad Shah and Farooq Ahmad Sheikh had planned to kill non-local labourers at Chidren Keegam on the directions of a Pakistan-based handler. During the plan’s execution, a pistol received by Abid Ahmad accidentally discharged and wounded Farooq Ahmad Sheikh. FIR No.97/2022 was registered at Police Station, Shopian, for offences under Section 307 IPC, Section 7/27 of the Arms Act, and Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Following the FIR, Zahid was released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Shopian, on 16 August 2022. The grounds of detention also alleged that the detenu was a close associate of jailed OGW Abid Ahmad and had remained in constant contact with him through encrypted social media applications. However, the grounds provided no particulars — no places, no dates, no specific acts — regarding any activity by Zahid after his bail was granted.

Absence of Post-Bail Activity

Justice Dhar scrutinised both the grounds of detention and the detention record produced by the respondents. He found them “silent as to the particulars of the fresh activities that have been allegedly undertaken by the petitioner after his release on bail.” Neither the places nor the details of any post-bail conduct were set out anywhere in the record.

The Court held that without particulars of post-bail activity and without any supporting material on record, the detention order was vulnerable and deserved to be set aside. The assertion of ongoing association with a jailed OGW through encrypted applications was noted, but the absence of specific, verifiable particulars meant the grounds were too vague to sustain the order.

The Juvenile Bar

The second and independent ground went to the character of the source FIR itself. A communication dated 18 July 2022 from the Headmaster of Government High School, Ahagam, Shopian, addressed to the Station House Officer of Police Station Keegam — annexed to the petition — recorded Zahid’s date of birth as 15 October 2006. This placed him below 18 years of age at the time of his arrest in FIR No.97/2022.

Justice Dhar stated plainly that an illegal act committed by a juvenile does not stigmatise his future and, by the same principle, cannot form the basis for a subsequent detention order — particularly because a juvenile cannot be detained under the Public Safety Act. The Court held that the detenu “could not have been detained under preventive laws for the activities alleged committed by him at the time when he was a juvenile.”

The bench drew support from the Division Bench decision in Tahir Riyaz Dar v. UT of J&K & Ors. (LPA No.121/2025, decided on 6 November 2025), which had addressed a similar position regarding juvenile activity and preventive detention under the PSA.

Why Both Grounds Mattered

The two findings operated together to make the detention order unsustainable. The first — absence of any post-bail activity — struck at the factual foundation of the order. Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to demonstrate that the person poses a continuing threat; an authority that can point only to events from 2022 without showing what the person has done since bail was granted fails that requirement.

The second finding went further. Even if some post-bail activity had been alleged, the underlying FIR — the event from which the entire detention narrative arose — involved conduct attributed to a juvenile. The PSA does not permit detention of a juvenile, and using juvenile-era conduct as the anchor for a later adult detention order runs contrary to that protection. A detention order built on such a foundation cannot stand regardless of what the authority adds around it.

Together, the two grounds left the 28 April 2025 order with no legal support. The vagueness of the grounds of detention, the silence on post-bail activity, and the inadmissibility of juvenile-era conduct as a detention trigger each independently warranted quashing.

Outcome

Justice Sanjay Dhar allowed HCP No.91/2025 and quashed detention order No.03/DMS/PSA of 2025 dated 28 April 2025. The detenu, Zahid Ahmad Mir, was directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith, subject to the condition that he is not required in connection with any other case. The detention record was ordered to be returned to counsel for the respondents.