Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 679 (JK)

Sameer Ahmad Wani v. State of J&K & Ors.

2011-12-03

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2011
1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court by the medium of this petition for quashment of order No.DMU-JC/11/PSA/1 dated 13.05.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Udhampur, whereby and whereunder the detenue, namely, Sameer Ahmad Wani, came to be detained under the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act, for short the 'Act', on the grounds taken in the petition. 2. Respondents have failed to file counter. However, produced the record. 3. It appears that petitioner is allegedly involved in the commission of offences of theft, burglary and extortion cases and while indulging in commission of crime has threatened peace loving citizens. He is also involved in militancy related activities and was an active militant of Hizbul Majahideen outfit. After examining record, the District Magistrate was of the opinion that it is a fit case for ordering detention in terms of the mandate of the Act. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of grounds of detention herein: "Whereas, you being a permanent resident of J&K State was working as a waiter in a hotel and thereafter indulged yourself in commission of offence like burlary, theft and extortion. Whereas, you have created scare, panic and fear among the general public and was deeply involved in the commission of offence of theft, burglary and extortion cases and while indulging in the commission of crime, you threatened the innocent and peace loving people in fear death, injury and thereby dishonestly induces the innocent people in fear to deliver any kind of property and valuable security. Whereas, you involved yourself in militant activities and became an active militant of H.M being an active member of HM is deeply involved in unleashing terrorism of high intensity and spreading insurgency in the state of J&K and other parts of the country with sole objective to liberate and seek secession of the state of J&K from the union of India by waging war against the lawfully established Government by indulging in subversive and disruptive activities against the state and by creating disturbance, disruption, panic scare/ alarm and terror amongst the pierce loving people of the state. Activities of the subject are highly prejudicial to the security of the state. The involvement of the subject has also been found during the investigation of the following cases which stand registered against you: 1. Case Fir No: 180/2004 u/s 457/380 RFC P/Achabal. 2. Activities of the subject are highly prejudicial to the security of the state. The involvement of the subject has also been found during the investigation of the following cases which stand registered against you: 1. Case Fir No: 180/2004 u/s 457/380 RFC P/Achabal. 2. Case Fir No: 18/2005 u/s 457/380 RFC Achabal. 3. Case Fir No.38/2005 u/s 341/383 RFC P/S Achabal. 4. Case Fir No: 165/2004 u/s 457/380 RFC P/s Achabal. 5. Case Fir No: 30/2005 u/s 457/380 RFC PS Achabal. 6. Case Fir No: 183/2008 u/s 379 RFC P/s Kulgam. 7. Case Fir No: 104/2008 u/s 392 RFC 7/25 A.Act P/s Dooru. Whereas as per interrogation report in the year 2008 you along with Fayaz S/o Abdul Rashid R/O Anantang-militant of HM outfit lodged in central Jail, Srinagar, who motivated you to work for militant outfit and after getting released from central jail, Srinagar you remained in touch with Fayaz Ahmed militant and you met number of times to him. As per the directions of Fayaz Ahmed (Militant) you held meeting with him in the month of September, 2008 and you snatched a Maruti car from a medical shop owner and again in the month of Oct, 2008 you snatched a Maruti van on gun point from Dooru Anantnag. You continuously remained in touch with militant outfit and kept yourself engaged in carrying out subversive/ disruptive activities and spreading insurgency in the state of J&K." 4. District Magistrate after deriving satisfaction prepared grounds of detention and came to the conclusion that there are sufficient grounds of detaining the detenue in detention. The details stated in grounds of detention clearly show that detenue was not amenable to ordinary course of law and thus has been rightly detained under the provisions of the Act. The same view has been taken by the apex court in case titled D.M. Nagaraja v. Government of Karnataka & Ors, reported as 2011 AIR SCW 5608. 5. Perusal of the record disclose that detention order was passed on 13th of May, 2011 and was executed on the same date. The grounds of detention and other material was supplied to the detenue on the same date. Notice was also give to the detenue for making representation. 6. 5. Perusal of the record disclose that detention order was passed on 13th of May, 2011 and was executed on the same date. The grounds of detention and other material was supplied to the detenue on the same date. Notice was also give to the detenue for making representation. 6. In the given circumstances, it can be safely held that respondents have observed all the safeguards as provided by the Constitution read with the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit and no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.