Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 546 (JK)

Bader Din v. State Of J&K

2010-10-22

Hasnain Massodi

body2010
1. Challenge in this petition is to order No. PSA/DM/10/02-09 dated 3rd of February 2010 of District Magistrate, Doda - respondent No.2 herein, whereby one Shri Bader Din son of Suleman Gujjar resident of Araie Tehsil Mandi District Poonch (herein after referred to as "detenue") has been placed under preventive detention. 2. The brief history of the case, as set out in the petition, is that the detenue was, without any cause of justification, apprehended and detention order No. PSA/DM/10/02-09 dated 3rd of February 2010, slapped upon the detenue. The respondents are stated to have ignored to provide material, relied upon by Detaining Authority to order detention and thus deprived detenue of his Constitutional and Statutory rights. Grounds of Detention are stated to be vague, non-existent and unfounded. 3. The respondents have in their Counter Affidavit disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue were seriously prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue at the time of execution of detention warrant after same were read over and explained to the detenue. The detention order is said to have been approved by the Government in terms of Government order No. Home/PB-V/706/2010 dated 2nd April 2010 and the State Advisory Board also to have approved the detention order. The Learned Deputy Advocate General has made available detention record to lend support to the case set up in counter affidavit. 4. Heard, perused and considered. 5. The Detention Order is liable to be quashed for the following reasons: - I) The Detention order makes mention of material record such as "dossier and other connected documents" relied upon by the Detaining Authority while making the detention order. The detention order also makes reference to a communication received from Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda. The detention record reveals that none of the documents referred to in the detention order was ever supplied to the detenue. The endorsement on the reverse of the detention order made by the Executing Officer -Sub Inspector, Mashkoor Ahmed, No.ExJo45872, Police Station Doda, at the time of execution of Detention Order does not make a reference to the documents in question and does not record that such documents were supplied to detenue at the time of execution of detention order or immediately thereafter. The grounds of detention make reference to case - FIR No. 238/2009 under section 147/148/458/342 RPC and FIR No.239/2009 under section 147/148/382/ 341/323/153-A RPC Police Station Doda, to have been registered against the detenue. The involvement of the detenue in aforementioned case(s) appears to have heavily weighed with Detaining Authority while making Detention Order. The record does not indicate that copies of aforementioned First Information Report(s), statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected in connection with investigation of aforesaid case(s), were ever supplied to detenue. It is pertinent to point out that Grounds of Detention, after detailing background, in which aforesaid case was registered against detenue, proceed to opine "Therefore, keeping in view the gravity, length and dimensions of your activities in the surcharged security scenario in the district, you are a security hazard to the internal security, integrity and sovereignty of the State and union of India". The material, mentioned above, thus assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not controverted the plea that said material was not furnished to detenue. The detention record made available by Learned Deputy Advocate General reveals that none of the documents referred to in the detention order was ever supplied to the detenue. It needs no emphasis, that the detenue cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of his Constitutional and Statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, unless and until the material on which the detention order is based, is supplied to the detenue. It is only after the detenue has all said material available, that the detenue can make an effort to convince Detaining Authority and thereafter Government, that their apprehension as regards activities of the detenue are baseless and misplaced. If the detenue is not supplied material, on which detention order is based, the detenue cannot be in a position to make an effective representation against his detention order. The failure on the part of Detaining Authority to supply material relied at the time of making detention order to detenue, renders detention order illegal and unsustainable. If the detenue is not supplied material, on which detention order is based, the detenue cannot be in a position to make an effective representation against his detention order. The failure on the part of Detaining Authority to supply material relied at the time of making detention order to detenue, renders detention order illegal and unsustainable. While holding so, I draw support from Dhannajoy Doss v. District Magistrate ( AIR 1982 SC 1315 ); Sofia Ghulam Mohammad Bam v. State of Maharashtra and Others ( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ); Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari (2008, Cr. L. J. 4567); Sued Aasiya Indrabi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others (S.L.J. 2009 (I) 219); and Tahir Haris v. State and Others (AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2184). II) Article 22(5) Constitution provides a precious and valuable right to a person detained under preventive detention law - J&K Public Safety Act 1978, to make a representation against his detention. It needs no emphasis that a detenue, on whom preventive detention order is slapped, is held in custody without a formal charge and a trial. The detenue is held in custody on a mere suspicion that his apprehended activities may be prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. Article 22(5) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Act, thus make it obligatory for Detaining Authority to provide detenue an earliest opportunity of making an effective and meaningful representation against his detention. The object is to enable detenue to convince Detaining Authority and Government, as the case may be, that all apprehensions regarding his activities are grossly misplaced and his detention is unwarranted. To make the Constitutional and Statutory right available to detenue meaningful, it is necessary that detenue be informed with all possible clarity what is/are apprehended activity/ies that persuaded Detaining Authority to make detention order. In case grounds of detention are vague, ambiguous and confusing, the detenue cannot be expected to make a representation against his detention. In the present case, the reasons spelt out in the grounds of detention include an apprehension that the detenue is motivating youths and students to join militant ranks. The other ground that is claimed to have weighed with the Detaining Authority, is that the detenue is delivering inflammatory speeches and also established links with the militants. In the present case, the reasons spelt out in the grounds of detention include an apprehension that the detenue is motivating youths and students to join militant ranks. The other ground that is claimed to have weighed with the Detaining Authority, is that the detenue is delivering inflammatory speeches and also established links with the militants. The grounds of detention ex facie are vague, ambiguous and sketchy and not clear to enable a man of common prudence to explain his stand muchless make an effective and meaningful representation. The detenue is not informed with clarity about his alleged activities that may prejudice security of State. The detenue is not furnished particulars of youths and students, who are stated to be motivated by the detenue, to join militant ranks. The grounds of detention thus are vague, sketchy and lacking in important details. The respondents, by their conduct, have deprived detenue of his Constitutional and Statutory rights, guaranteed under Article 22(5) and section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act. It is well settled law that even if one, amongst various grounds of detention, is found to be vague, the Constitutional and Statutory safeguards available to detenue, are to be held to have been violated. View taken finds support from the law laid down in Dr. Ram Krishan v. The State of Delhi and others (AIR, 1953); Chaju Ram v. State of J&K ( AIR 1971 SC 263 ); Mohd Yousuf Rather v. State of J&K ( AIR 1979 SC 1925 ); and Syed Aasiya Indrabi v. State of J&K and others (2009 (I) SLJ 2009 219). III) The Detaining Authority -- respondent No.2 did not inform the detenue that the detenue independent of his right to file representation against his detention to the Government, has also right to submit a representation to the Detaining Authority till the detention was considered by the Government and accorded approval. The respondent No.2 has in effect violated Constitutional and statutory rights of the detenue, guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid down in State of Maharashtra and others v. Santosh Shanker Acharya ( AIR 2000 SC 2504 ). IV) That though the detenue is said to have made a representation through his brother - Mohd. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid down in State of Maharashtra and others v. Santosh Shanker Acharya ( AIR 2000 SC 2504 ). IV) That though the detenue is said to have made a representation through his brother - Mohd. Akram son of Suleman Gujjar, yet consideration of representation appears to have been an empty formality inasmuch as the State Advisory Board, as is evident from the detention record, was not handed over copy of the representation. The State Advisory Board in order dated 26.03.2010 has recorded the detenue not to have made any representation to the Government to controvert the allegations leveled against him. 6. Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and detention order No. PSA/DM/10/02-09 dated 3rd of February 2010, passed by the District Magistrate Doda-respondent No. 2, directing detention of Shri Bader Din son of Suleman Gujjar resident of Araie Tehsil Mandi District Poonch, is quashed. 7. The respondents in view of quashment of detention order are stripped of any authority to detain the detenue under order No. PSA/DM/10/02-09 dated 3rd of February 2010. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to release the detenue from preventive detention, ordered vide order No. No. PSA/DM/10/02-09 dated 3rd of February 2010. Disposed of.