Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 27 (JK)

Arshad Ahmad Parray v. State & Ors.

2011-02-04

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2011
1. Resort to preventive measures becomes imperative when a person indulges in activities persistently and becomes threat not only to the property but also to the life and in him becomes potential threat to the maintenance of public order. In the said back drop impugned order of detention bearing No.26/DMB/PSA/10 dated 28.5.2010 has been passed. Aggrieved thereof, instant petition has been filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of detention is liable to be quashed on following grounds: 1) Non application of mind on the part of Detaining authority; 2) Non supply of the material forming base for the grounds of detention. 3) Grounds of detention have not been read over and explained to the detenue. 4. In opposition learned counsel for the respondents highlighted the activities of the detenue and his continuous unlawful activities coupled with the chance given to the detenue for reformation. 5. While considering the respective submissions coupled with the record as made available, what emerges is that the detenue has been carrying out various activities right from the year 2006 when he was involved in a case registered as FIR No.42/2007 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 121,212,120,122 RFC, 7/25 Arms Act, 4/5 Explosive Substances act. On completion of investigation case has been presented before the Court of law wherefrom detenue got released on bail but still did not stop when he again on 4.4.2010 along with other associates tried to eliminate one Advocate, namely, Abdul Gani Dar and from the possession of detenue arms and ammunition such as : 1) AK 56 Rifle (01) 2) AK 56 Magazine (01) 3) AK 56 Rounds (10) 4) Pistol Chinese (01) 5) Pistol Magazine (01) 6) Pistol rounds (03) 7) Chinese grenades (02) have been recovered and the case has been registered as FIR No.58/2010 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 451,307, RPC 7/27 Arms Act. 6. The Detaining Authority has strictly complied with the provisions of Public Safety Act while passing the order of detention. The contention that the detention order suffers from non application of mind is belied by records. 7. The second contention about non-furnishing of material to the detenue is refuted as the record reveals that the grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenue and he has been informed about the right to make representation. The contention that the detention order suffers from non application of mind is belied by records. 7. The second contention about non-furnishing of material to the detenue is refuted as the record reveals that the grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenue and he has been informed about the right to make representation. He has not made any representation at all. In case he would have made representation and if same would have been rejected, it could be safely said that the non-supply of the material forming base for the grounds of detention has disabled the detenue from making an effective representation and it could be a ground available. This argument in such circumstances is inconsequential. 8. The next contention that the grounds of detention have not been explained and read over to the detenue is also belied by record as the certificate available on the record as produced clearly indicates that the grounds of detention have been read over and explained, both in Urdu and Kashmiri language, to the detenue which he has understood fully and has acknowledged the same by singing the certificate. This position has not been controverted. Furthermore, even the detenue could in the representation make mention that the grounds were not explained to him. What prevented detenue from making such representation when he was given chance to make representation against the order of detention, has not been explained. 9. For the stated reasons petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. 10. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.