BASHIR AHMAD BEIGH MR. WAJID MOHAMMAD HASEEB vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME DEPARTMENT) — HCP/272/2024
Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC010039392024
Filing Number
HCP/992/2024
Filing Date
05-08-2024
Registration No
HCP/272/2024
Registration Date
05-08-2024
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR
Bench Type
SINGLE BENCH
Category
SB HABEAS CORPUS PETITION ( 107 )
Sub-Category
CASES PERTAINING TO PSA ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
HABEUS CORPUS PETITION (HCP)
Decision Date
08th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BASHIR AHMAD BEIGH MR. WAJID MOHAMMAD HASEEB
Respondent(s)
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME DEPARTMENT)
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR
FOR ADMISSION FRESH
FOR FINAL HEARING
FOR FINAL HEARING
FOR FINAL HEARING
FOR FINAL HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-08-2024 | FOR ADMISSION FRESH |
| 16-04-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING |
| 12-02-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING |
| 28-01-2026 | FOR FINAL HEARING |
Orders
Case Summary: HCP/272/2024 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir quashed a preventive detention order against Bashir Ahmad Beigh, finding the grounds of detention vague and lacking any specific fresh activities after his release. The court held that while past conduct may be considered, detention must be based on proximate and compelling reasons, requiring reference to specific prejudicial activities necessitating detention—mere reliance on old incidents with a large temporal gap is insufficient to justify preventive custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: HCP/272/2024 The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir quashed a preventive detention order against Bashir Ahmad Beigh, finding the grounds of detention vague and lacking any specific fresh activities after his release. The court held that while past conduct may be considered, detention must be based on proximate and compelling reasons, requiring reference to specific prejudicial activities necessitating detention—mere reliance on old incidents with a large temporal gap is insufficient to justify preventive custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts