Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 80 (JK)

Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of J&K and others

2011-02-28

HASNAIN MASSODI

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge 1. Challenge in this petition is to order No. DMB/PSA/194 of 2010 dated 1st August 2010, of District Magistrate, Budgam respondent No. 2 herein, whereby one Shri Bilal Ahmad Kallo(Kaloo) son of Ali Mohammad Kallo(Kaloo) resident of Humhama Tehsil and District Budgam(herein after referred to as detenue) has been placed under preventive detention and his lodgment directed in District Jail, Kathua. 2. The petitioner's case is that the detenue was, without any cause or justification, apprehended and thereafter detention order No. DMB/PSA/194 of 2010 dated 1st August 2010, slapped on him. The respondents, it is insisted, have ignored to provide detention order and material, relied upon by Detaining Authority to order detention and thus deprived detenue of his Constitutional and Statutory right to represent against his detention. 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 prejudicial to the security of the State. The detention order is said to have been approved by the State Advisory Board and also by Government vide order No. Home/PB-V/2174/2010 dated 21.09.2010. The learned Government Advocate has made available detention record to lend support to the case set up in the counter affidavit. 4. I have gone through the petition and counter affidavit as also detention record. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents. 5. The Detention Order is liable to be quashed for the following reasons- The detention order makes mention of material record such as dossier and other connecting documents relied upon by the detaining authority while making detention order. The detention order also makes reference to a communication received from Superintendent of Police, Budgam vide No. Legal/Dos/09/1955-58 dated 01.08.2010. The detention record, however, reveals that none of the documents referred to in the detention order, was ever supplied to detenue. The endorsement on the reverse of the detention order made by the Executing Officer ' Mohd Yousuf ASI NO.546/GBL of P.P. Humhama P/S Budgam, 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. 253/2010, 261/2010, 281/2010, 289/2010, 299/2010 and 302/2010 under section 147,148,149,336, 332,427,341,307 RPC, P/S Budgam, 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), statement(s) recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected in connection with investigation of aforesaid case, were ever supplied to detenue. It is pertinent to point out that the respondent No. 2 in grounds of detention, after detailing the background, in which aforesaid case was registered against detenue, proceeds to opine It becomes necessary, therefore, to detain you under PSA with a view to preventing you from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.. 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 the said material was not furnished to detenue. The detention record made available by learned Government Advocate reveals that none of the documents referred to in the detention order was ever supplied to 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 such material available, that the detenue can make an effort to convince detaining authority and thereafter Government, that their apprehensions 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 Dass versus District Magistrate ( AIR 1982 SC 1315 ); Sofia Ghulam Mohammad Bam versus State of Maharashtra and Others ( AIR 1999 SC 3051 ); Union of India versus Ranu Bhandari ( 2008 Cri L. J. 4567); Syed Aasiya Indrabi versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others (2009 (I) S.L.J. 219); and Tahir Haris versus State and Others ( AIR 2009 SC 2184 ). 6. 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 maintenance of public order or security of State. 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. 7. In the instant case the detenue is alleged to be responsible for indulging in stone pelting, and instigating the youth to create law and order problem. The detenue is also alleged to be participating in almost every stone pelting incident. The detenue is not furnished with the particulars of youth, who are stated to be instigated by detenue for indulging in stone pelting. The detenue is also alleged to be participating in almost every stone pelting incident. The detenue is not furnished with the particulars of youth, who are stated to be instigated by detenue for indulging in stone pelting. The detenue is again alleged to be responsible for instigating and instructing rioters to cause damage to public property and carrying out violent attacks on Police/Security Personnel. The detenue is not informed with sufficient clarity the exact allegations leveled and furnished the particulars of rioters, who are stated to be responsible for indulging in stone pelting, nor the particulars of police and security personnel, who are alleged to have been attacked by the detenue by carrying violent attacks on them. The counter affidavit as also detention record, do not reveal that the detenue is furnished the necessary details of occurrence(s) attributed to him. Moreover, grounds of detention do not contain details of Public property and public vehicles or their exact numbers, which are alleged to be damaged by the rioters/youth/shopkeepers instigated by detenue. The detenue, in absence of such details, could not be expected to have been in a position to give his side of the story and persuade the detaining authority that the allegations against the detenue were bereft of any basis. To sum up, the grounds of detention that constitute basis for the detention order in question are ambiguous, vague, uncertain and hazy. A person of ordinary prudence would not be in a position to explain his stand in reply to the grounds of detention detailed by the detaining authority. The detenue has been kept guessing about the facts and events that weighed with the detaining authority and prompted detaining authority to record subjective satisfaction regarding sufficiency of the material to warrant preventive detention of detenue. These are only few instances to illustrate that the grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous and bound to keep the detenue guessing about what really was intended to be conveyed by detaining authority. It is well settled law that even where one of the grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority to order detention is vague and ambiguous, Constitutional and Statutory right of the detenue to make a representation against his detention are taken to have been violated. Reference in this regard may be made to Dr. It is well settled law that even where one of the grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority to order detention is vague and ambiguous, Constitutional and Statutory right of the detenue to make a representation against his detention are taken to have been violated. Reference in this regard may be made to Dr. Ram Krishan Versus The State of Delhi and others, AIR, 1953,; Chaju Ram Versus State of J&K, AIR 1971 SC 263 ; Mohd Yousuf Rather Versus State of J&K, AIR 1979 SC 1925 ; and Syed Aasiya Indrabi Versus State of J&K and others, 2009 (I) SLJ 219. 8. The respondent No. 2 in the concluding para of the grounds of detention claims to be satisfied that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, the respondent No. 2 in his counter affidavit has averred that the detenue was placed under preventive detention as in the opinion of respondent No. 2 the activities of the detenue were found prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. It would be apt to reproduce here relevant para of counter affidavit sworn by respondent No. 2 (i) That no right of the petitioner (detenue) has been violated by ordering her detention as her remaining at large has been found great threat to the maintenance of security of the State 9. There is thus conflict between the detention order, impugned in the petition, and the counter affidavit sworn by the detaining authority. The conflicting stands and text of para (i) supra, are indicative of non-application of mind by detaining authority. The detaining authority, as is evident from the above reproduced Para, is not even aware of gender of the detenue. The detaining authority appears to be not sure about the exact ground that persuaded it to make the detention order. It is pertinent to point out that the detaining authority can slap prevention detention if the activities of the person proposed to be detained under the Act are prejudicial to the security of the State or public order. Once the detaining authority has not been able to spell out the exact ground that led to detention of detenue, non-application on the part of detaining authority is writ large on the detention order and the detention order liable to be quashed. 10. Once the detaining authority has not been able to spell out the exact ground that led to detention of detenue, non-application on the part of detaining authority is writ large on the detention order and the detention order liable to be quashed. 10. For the reasons discussed, the petition is allowed and detention order No. DMB/PSA/194 of 2010 dated 1st August 2010, passed by the District Magistrate, Budgam respondent No. 2, directing detention of Shri Bilal Ahmad Kallo (Kaloo) son of Ali Mohammad Kallo (Kaloo) resident of Humhama Tehsil and District Budgam, quashed. 11. The respondents, in view of quashment of detention order, are stripped of any authority to detain the detenue under order No. DMB/PSA/194 of 2010 dated 1st August 2010. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to release the detenue from preventive detention, ordered vide order No. DMB/PSA/194 of 2010 dated 1st August 2010. 12. Detention record be returned to the counsel for respondents. 13. Disposed of.