Mistaken Identity, 1 Year Behind Bars: J&K and L HC Orders Release of Anantnag Man

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a preventive detention order issued against a 34-year-old man from Anantnag, stating that the detaining authority failed to apply its mind and detained the individual on grounds of mistaken identity.

The order, passed under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, was found to be based on material that pertained to a different person, leading the court to conclude that the "foundation" for the detention had "collapsed by default".

The bench of Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi had reserved the verdict on a habeas corpus petition by Imtiyaz Ahmad Ganie through his father on August 20, 2025, and pronounced on September 3, 2025. In the order, court underscored the gravity of depriving an individual of their liberty in a "casual, indifferent and routine manner".

Ganie was detained by an order dated April 20, 2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Anantnag. The detention was on the grounds of allegedly acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the Union Territory. The detenue was arrested on April 15, 2024, and subsequently shifted to Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu, under preventive detention.

Challenging the order, the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Sheikh Younis, argued that the detention order suffered from a clear "non-application of mind". He submitted that the material relied upon for the detention was not furnished to the detenue, and procedural safeguards mandated by law had not been adhered to by the detaining authority. The petitioner's plea further contended that the allegations forming the basis of the grounds of detention bore no nexus with the detenue.

The respondents, represented by Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway filed a counter-affidavit opposing the petition. They contended that the averments made by the petitioner were "factually untenable and devoid of merit". They argued that the detenue had been found involved in anti-national activities and was of a criminal disposition. The respondents further maintained that the detaining authority, upon due consideration of the material, was satisfied about the detenue's involvement in such activities, which had "serious repercussions on the maintenance of security" of the Union of India and the UT of J&K. They also asserted that all statutory safeguards under the J&K Public Safety Act, along with constitutional rights, had been "scrupulously followed," and that the detention order, grounds, and relevant documents were supplied to the detenue, who was also informed of his right to make a representation.

Upon perusal of the record, court highlighted a critical error in the grounds of detention. Court noted that the respondents "had intended to detain another individual, but on account of mistaken identity, the detenue has been detained in his place".

Court extracted a crucial paragraph from the detention record, which pertained to a case (FIR No. 49/2024) and the apprehension of "Imtiyaz Ahmad Wani S/O Late Ama Wani R/O Cheer Pora Uttersoo Shangus Anantnag". This record explicitly stated that while "his involvement in the case cannot be ruled out," the "evidence collected against the individual is not sufficient to the extent to book him in the case under substantive laws." This finding was central to the court’s decision.

"The aforesaid extract from the detention record, forming the basis of the impugned order, suggests that the detaining authority has failed to apply its mind to the material placed before it while passing the impugned order, and such lapse goes to the very root of the impugned order," the judgment stated.

Court also found that the respondents’ counter-affidavit offered "absolutely no justification" for the "factum of mistaken identity". It added that the detaining authority was "shamelessly trying to support the issuance of the impugned order from material which does not speak of the involvement of the detenue".

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana, the High Court reiterated that a detention order cannot be sustained if it is an outcome of non-application of mind.

Court also referred to Jai Singh and Ors. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, which holds that a detention order that is a verbatim copy of the dossier suggests a non-application of mind. Court concluded that the petitioner had succeeded in proving his case on the ground of non-application of mind alone, making it unnecessary to examine other grounds.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the detention order dated April 20, 2024, and directed the respondents to "release the detenue forthwith".

Case Title: Imtiyaz Ahmad Ganie vs. UT of J&K and Ladakh

Order Date: September 3, 2025

Bench: Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi