Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 87 (JK)

Riyaz Ahmed Teedwa v. State Of J. &K.

2010-02-25

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2010
1. Allegedly the detenue in connection with case registered as FIR No. 143/2009 has been arrested on 24.09.2009, thereafter in pursuance of detention order No. DMG/PSA/06/09 dated 30.09.2009 has been lodged in District Jail, Udhampur. The detenue allegedly is involved in various unlawful activities. 2. The first contention raised is that the detenue was under custody in connection with FIR No. 143/2009, Police Station, Kangan, neither has applied for bail nor otherwise ordered to be released on bail. The object of issuing order of detention relatable to the detenu was to deter him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, when he was already in custody, the question of having resort to preventive measures was of no avail, provided it would appear to the detaining authority that the detenu is likely to be released- or otherwise there are compelling circumstances, in this context nothing is brought on record. 3. The next contention raised is that the grounds of detention are vague, the cursory look on the grounds of detention would reveal that the detenu allegedly has been a close associate of a dreaded terrorist namely Gh. Nabi War and has been providing logistic support to the militants including food, shelter and means of communication for the last four years. It is a general allegation, nothing specific is available on record which would show as to whom and to which number of militants and where the detenue has been providing food, information and shelter to the militants, if the allegation of doing such acts for last four years is taken correct then for the last four years, at least, a single case would have been registered against him or otherwise for last four years some measures would have been taken by the concerned agencies against the detenue. Nothing in this direction has been brought on record which in turn would show that the allegations are without basis. It is also mentioned among other things that the detenue has been providing hideouts to the terrorists and most of such hideouts with the help of the detenue were constructed in the forest area of Akhal, Hayan Palpora Kangan but from the records, it nowhere is shown as to how many hideouts were constructed and located so a general allegation. When it is so, such allegations could not be made base for passing the order of detention. 4. When it is so, such allegations could not be made base for passing the order of detention. 4. Against the preventive orders, the detenu has certain safeguards i.e. right to file representation which is guaranteed to him but infringed by not supplying the material forming base for the detention. 5. The preventive detention runs the risk of depriving a citizen of his liberty. Curtailment of liberty may be imperative but for such curtailment, the detaining authority has to ensure that the rights guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India are respected. The safeguards for respecting such liberty flows from the constitutional provisions, violation thereof, renders the preventive order as illegal. The material based on which the grounds of detention are to be formulated must be such where from detaining authority can derive subjective satisfaction. Thereafter, it is the detaining authority who is duty bound to furnish the material in the language in which the detenue understands so as to enable him to make a purposeful representation against the order of detention. If the detaining authority fails to ensure the supply of material then the guaranteed right of the detenue gets violated which in turn renders the order of detention as bad. 6. The detention record as made available does not contain the material based on which grounds of detention have been formulated. Either the material has not been placed before the authority or else the detaining authority has exhibited casual approach in passing the order of detention. 7. The grounds of detention being vague, unsupported by any material coupled with non application of mind renders the order of detention as illegal, as such, is quashed. 8. Detenue namely Riyaz Ahmed Teedwa S/o Shaira Teedwa R/o Kral Khai Hayan Palpora, Kangan, is ordered to be released forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case. 9. The petition accordingly succeeds. Detention record be returned to the appearing counsel for respondents.