Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 261 (JK)

Mohd. Ayub Rather v. State

2001-11-06

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2001
1. This Habeas Corpus petition moved on behalf of detenue Mohd. Ayub Rather by his father throw challenge to detention order No. 60/DMP/2000 dated: 13.12.2000 of District Magistrate, Pulwama (respondent No. 2) ordering detention of said Mohd. Ayub Rather U/s 8 of J&K P.S. Act 197.8 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. Counter has been filed by the respondents through detaining authority (respondent No.2) 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in terms has assailed the detention order and questions the detention on the ground that the detenue is a psychiatric patient with known history of dis-order and is even registered with psychiatric diseases Hospital. Being of unsound mind he is not in a position to know and understand, confining him in detention is illegal. Besides, there has been inordinate delay in the execution of detention order and no explanation or reasons given therefore. The detention order is passed on 13.12.2000 while it is executed and detenue taken in preventive detention only on 3.1.2001. Though the detenue was arrrested in a regular case FIR NO. 85/2000 registered with P/s Tral and that he was given bail by the. judicial Magistrate on 1.12.2000 on the ground of un-soundness of mind, yet the detaining authority has not shown awareness of the bail matter as also of his unsoundness of mind thereby impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. 3. Learned counsel for respondents Mr. A.M. Watali, GA submits that from record it is found that the detenue is suffering from psychiatric problem and is a registered patient with psychiatric Hospital, Srinagar. But all the same the counsel submits that the detenue is provided medical treatment depending on the eventuality of requirement for such treatment. The counsel further concedes that there is delay of about three weeks in execution of the detention order and that he is not able to explain or give any reason why so much time was taken to execute the order except that the counsel submits that the time was taken in processing the matter before the Advisory Board and passing of confirmation orders by the Govt. under P.S. Act. Counsel further submits that the detaining authority was not aware about the passing of the bail order in the regular case and therefore, same has not reflected in the grounds or the order. under P.S. Act. Counsel further submits that the detaining authority was not aware about the passing of the bail order in the regular case and therefore, same has not reflected in the grounds or the order. But all the same the counsel submits that the detaining authority was aware of registration of regular case and yet thought fit to pass the detention order. Para 5(e) of the petition reads as: That the detenue is of un-sounded mind and is a registered patient with the psychiatric Diseases Hospital Srinagar vide registration No. Z 1820, dated 8.12.98. The Medical certificated is enclosed with this petition as Annexure-D� In counter reply to para 5(e) reads as:- Ground (e) is not correct, hence denied. The detenue will be provided medical treatment as and when required.� 4. However, annexure-D shows that the detenue is registered patient of Govt. psychiatric Disease Hospital under registration No. z-1820 dated: 18.12.1998 and is diagnosed as a case of Bipoar Affective Disorder and is being treated in the Hospital. The certificate is issued by the members of the Medical Board on 15-03-1999 under No. MB/578. The bail order passed by judicial Magistrate, Tral (Annexure-C) also shows that the detenue has been given bail in the regular FIR No. 85/2000 U/s 5 Exp. Act on the ground of mental incapacity of the accused. This apart from the detention file produced by GA it is seen that even the Advisory Board in its report dated: 13-02-2001 has observed:- ... We found that he is mentally disturbed.....This man is not receiving the proper medical aid.......lodge him in Kotbalwal Jammu wherefrom he could get proper medical aid in Jammu.� 5. Mr. Watali faced with this situation concedes that the detenue is diseased in body and mind and does suffer from a sort of mental disease and is to a degree of unsounded mind. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances can it be said that the detenues case is considered by the detaining authority in proper perceptive. The detaining authority has not shown awareness about this aspect of the case. Besides even fulfillment of statutory requirements of the detenue being given opportunity to make representation against detention order cannot be said to be given. He is not in a position to make an effective and meaningful representation against the detention in question. 7. In Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India & Ors. Besides even fulfillment of statutory requirements of the detenue being given opportunity to make representation against detention order cannot be said to be given. He is not in a position to make an effective and meaningful representation against the detention in question. 7. In Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993 (4) SCC 204) the Supreme Court after the write-up under the title jailing the mentally ill in Calcutta (West Bengal) was brought to its notice, after taking note of the position in such cases obtaining in England and Wales, issued inter alia a direction "it is declared that the admission of non-criminal mentally ill persons to jail is illegal and unconstitutional". Obviously this declaration of law by the Supreme Court under article 141 of the Constitution apply to this case with full force. 8. Admittedly there has been over 21 days delay in executing the detention order from 13-12-2000 to 03-01 -2001. No explanation whatsoever or reason thereafter is forth-coming from record. Notwithstanding that the detenue was in custody of the State Govt. under punitive detention, he was not taken in preventive detention within above three week period, which in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, is inordinate delay to implement the order. There is no explanation or reasons thereto on record. It is to indicate that there is doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction or detaining authority from the stand point of proximate and live link between the grounds of detention and purpose of detention. In K.P.M. Basheer Vs. State of Karnatka, and Anr. (AIR 1992 SC 1353) it is observed:- ...Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the order of detention cannot be sustained since the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention is snapped on account of the undue and unreasonable delay in securing the appellant/detenue and detaining him.....� Obviously the impugned and the consequent detention is hit by the above principle. 9. As admitted on record the subject was arrested on 13-11-2000 in regular case FIR No. 85/2000 U/s 5 Exp. substance Act registered at P/S Tral. He was given bail on 01-12-2000 by the Munsiff Judicial Magistrate Tral (Annexure-C). The detention order was passed on 13-12-2000. In the ground no mention is made of the detenue being given the bail as above or he having move the court for the purpose. substance Act registered at P/S Tral. He was given bail on 01-12-2000 by the Munsiff Judicial Magistrate Tral (Annexure-C). The detention order was passed on 13-12-2000. In the ground no mention is made of the detenue being given the bail as above or he having move the court for the purpose. In fact in the grounds no reasons muchless compelling reasons is given to warrant detention of the subject under provisions of Public Safety Act. The grounds as also the order is silent on this aspect of the matter. 10. In Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat Vs. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1196) the court upheld the powers of detaining authority to order preventive detention in respect of a person already in custody for "compelling reasons" to justify such detention. The compelling reason in this contention has been interpreted to imply: ...That there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenue is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenue, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities...� 11. In the instant case in terms of the grounds of detention the detaining authority has only mentioned that the subject has been taken in custody in the regular case. The grounds do not mention that the detenue would be released from custody on bail or that the application for bail has been moved. Nothing has been said about a reasonable perspective of the detenue engaging himself in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. Contextually examination of the grounds would reveal that the grounds compromise of 5 paras. First para is introductory and pertains to period 1991-92. Para 2 speaks of detenues association with two persons of Hizbul Mujahideen who have been released from custody. Para 3 is regarding aim and object of the H.M. Militant organisation, para 4 concerns arrest of the subject in the above FIR registered at P/S Tral and para 5 says that the detenues activities being prejudicial to the security of the State, therefore, he is detained under the provisions of J&K P.S. Act. Para 3 is regarding aim and object of the H.M. Militant organisation, para 4 concerns arrest of the subject in the above FIR registered at P/S Tral and para 5 says that the detenues activities being prejudicial to the security of the State, therefore, he is detained under the provisions of J&K P.S. Act. Apart from stale, vague and quite distant narration of ominibus allegations, no reasons muchless compelling reasons, are given to warrant continued detention of detenue. The contention of the petitioner/detenues counsel on this count is sustainable on record. For the aforesaid reasons the detention is found vitiated and the detention order is illegal. The order is quashed. Respondents/detaining authority/officer having physical corpus of the detenue Mohd Ayub Rather S/o Mohd Ramzan Rather R/o Dadsera Tral Pulwama is directed to release the subject and set him at liberty forthwith provided he is not required in any offence/case or matter. Give copy of this order to petitioner free of cost and communicate the order to concerned for follow-up action. Record produced by Mr. A.M. Watali, GA is returned to him in open court.