news details |
|
|
| HC directs police not to detain three Advocates under PSA | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 22: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the authorities not to detain three practising advocates under the Public Safety Act (PSA) on the basis of FIR No. 27/2026 registered at Police Station Batamaloo, subject to the condition that they are not involved in any other case or crime.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri passed the order in a petition filed by advocates Irfan Akbar Malla, Umar Mushtaq Mir and Jahangir Ahmad Bhat, who had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution apprehending detention under the PSA. The judgment was pronounced on September 22, 2026.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Saleem Gul, are practising advocates before the District Courts. Their plea arose out of an incident connected with a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act pending before the 4th Additional Munsiff, Srinagar.
According to the petitioners, while they were proceeding towards the office of the District Legal Services Authority in the District Court Complex, Srinagar, for mediation proceedings, an altercation took place with the opposite party in the matrimonial dispute. They alleged that one of them was assaulted and that a selectively edited video of the incident was later uploaded on social media.
On the basis of the incident, FIR No. 27/2026 under Sections 136 and 351(2) of the BNS was registered against the advocates at Police Station Batamaloo. The petitioners apprehended that the authorities might invoke the PSA against them and contended that preventive detention should not be used as a substitute for proceedings under ordinary penal law.
The High Court had earlier, on March 31, restrained the respondents from detaining the petitioners in connection with the FIR without prior permission of the Court. The petitioners were also directed to furnish an undertaking that they would not take the law into their own hands and would refrain from repeating a similar incident.
The Court later noted that neither the respondents had filed their response nor had the petitioners furnished the undertaking contemplated in the earlier order.
Considering the limited controversy, the High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondents to refrain from detaining the petitioners under the PSA, provided they are not involved in any other case or crime apart from FIR No. 27/2026 under Sections 136 and 351(2) BNS.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
