Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 307 (JK)

Manzoor Ahmed Wani v. State Of J. &K.

2008-07-24

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2008
1. The detenue namely Manzoor Ahmed Wani S/o Assadullah Wani R/o Natipora, Rambagh, Srinagar has been arrested by the Security Forces on 05.11.2006. Case registered against him as crime No. 126/2006 P/S Sadar for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 RPC. While in custody detenue was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act pursuant to detention order No. DMS/PSA/28 of 2007 dated 13.02.2008. Aggrieved thereof, instant petition for quashment. 2. Considered the submissions as made, perused the respective pleadings, what emerges therefrom is that the detenue, while being at large, had undertaken multi-dimensional subversive activities, consequent thereof has threatened the security of the State. His activities have been found prejudicial to the integrity/security of the State so detained. 3. Appearing counsel for the petitioner first contended that the detenue was arrested on 05.11.2006 in connection with FIR No. 126/2006 registered in Police Station, Sadar then his custody was changed from one FIR to other FIR. The grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenue but material forming basis for the detention has not been furnished to the detenue. This contention is only to be rejected because the grounds of detention are in detail referring to all the activities alleged against the detenue. Same furnished to the detenue, detenue has not chosen to file any representation. Dossier forming basis for detention in its all material particulars have been made mention of in the grounds of detention. 4. Appearing counsel for the petitioner next contended that the detenue has been arrested in various cases registered as FIR Nos. 121/2005, 126/2005, 16/2006, 126/2006 and 28/2007. In some cases he has succeeded in obtaining the bail when the detenue was arrested in connection with commission of substantive offence, there was no requirement of passing the order of detention, that apart detaining authority otherwise had to record the compelling reasons for passing the order of detention. 5. It is now settled that the order of detention can be passed even when the detenue is arrested in connection with commission of substantive offence but compelling reasons are to be recorded. The compelling reasons for ordering the detention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the detailed grounds of detention are such wherefrom it can be gathered that the detaining authority had valid reasons for ordering the detention. 6. The compelling reasons for ordering the detention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the detailed grounds of detention are such wherefrom it can be gathered that the detaining authority had valid reasons for ordering the detention. 6. Appearing counsel for respondents rightly referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, passed in LPA No. 162/2007 dated 06.08.2007, titled Firdous Ahmed Sofi vs. State and Ors, wherein it has been held: "That the compelling reasons may be gathered from the facts and circumstances leading to the detention and the existence of the compelling reason may appear by the reading of the detention order as a whole". 7. In the instant case, the grounds of detention satisfy the test of compelling reasons which constrained detaining authority to pass the order of detention. 8. The appearing counsel for the petitioner next contended that the grounds of detention were not read over to the detenue. The submission is negatived by the record wherefrom it is found that the grounds of detention have been read over to the detenue in Urdu and Kashmiri languages and he has signed the certificate recorded to that effect. 9. Appearing counsel for petitioner next contended that the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite and irrelevant but this contention is to be repelled by the grounds of detention which are in detail and explicit. 10. Next it is contended that the detenue was not informed as to before which authority he had to file the representation. This contention is also without any basis, as the detenue has been heard by the State Advisory Board constituted under Section 14 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. It was for him to initiate the process of filing representation, lie has chosen not to file any representation. Now has taken a pretext of not knowing before whom he had to file the representation. 11. Next it was contended that there is delay in execution of order. Same on perusal of the record is not found justified. No such delay is noticed, neither appearing counsel for the petitioner could explain as to how there was delay. Now has taken a pretext of not knowing before whom he had to file the representation. 11. Next it was contended that there is delay in execution of order. Same on perusal of the record is not found justified. No such delay is noticed, neither appearing counsel for the petitioner could explain as to how there was delay. From the perusal of record, it is clear that detention order issued is dated 13.02.2008, date of execution is 21.02.2008 and date of approval is 22.02.2008 so is totally in keeping with Section 13 of the Public Safety Act. No ground whatsoever which would warrant quashment of the order, hence, petition fails so is dismissed. Detention record be returned to the appearing counsel for respondents. Petition accordingly disposed of.