Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 545 (JK)

Mohd. Ahsan Dar v. State Of J&K

2009-11-06

J.P.Singh

body2009
1. Mohammad Ahsan Dar has questioned his Detention ordered vide District Magistrate, Bandipora’s order No. 271/DMB/PSA of 2009 dated March 24, 2009, inter alia, on the ground that the Detaining Authority had not satisfied itself as to the existence or otherwise of the compelling reasons justifying his detention in Preventive Custody, when he was already in police custody in FIR no. 12/2009 registered at Police Station, Sumbal, under Section 121 of the Ranbir Penal Code and Section 13 of Unlawful Activities Act. 2. According to the petitioner’s learned Counsel, the petitioner’s detention suffered from non application of mind, in that, the detaining Authority has not indicated the compelling reasons justifying petitioner’s detention in Preventive Custody, when he was already in Police Custody at the time of the issuance of the Detention order. 3. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and perused the Detention records, which were made available by the learned State counsel. 4. The District Magistrate, Bandipora has not dealt with the specific plea raised by the petitioner in paragraph No. 3(c) of his Petition urging that the Detaining Authority had not indicated the compelling reasons for detaining the petitioner in Preventive Custody, when he was already in Police Custody. 5. Neither the Police Dossier nor the grounds of detention spell out requisite reasons which had Weighed with the Detaining Authority in exercising jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, for detaining the petitioner, who was already in police custody in case FIR no. 12/2009 under Section 121of Ranbir Penal Code and Section 13 of Unlawful Activities Act, which entail punishment upto imprisonment for life. 6. In the absence of any such satisfaction by the Detaining Authority about the likelihood of the detenu’s release from custody under the substantive offences, petitioner’s detention under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, cannot thus be justified, for, no reasons much less valid have been indicated for putting the petitioner in Preventive Detention when he is not shown likely to be released from custody under the substantive offences, for indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of State. 7. The only ground urged by the petitioner, as aforesaid, in support of the petition, therefore, succeeds. 8. This Petition is, accordingly, allowed, quashing District Magistrate Bandipora’s order No. 271/DMB/PSA of 2009 dated March 24, 2009. 7. The only ground urged by the petitioner, as aforesaid, in support of the petition, therefore, succeeds. 8. This Petition is, accordingly, allowed, quashing District Magistrate Bandipora’s order No. 271/DMB/PSA of 2009 dated March 24, 2009. A direction shall, therefore, issue to the respondents to set the petitioner to liberty from the Preventive Custody. Records be returned to the State Counsel.