Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 107 (JK)

Ghulam Hassan Malik v. State of J&K

2012-03-14

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2012
1. Detenue, Ghulam Hassan Malik, has been detained pursuant to detention order No.45/DMB/PSA/2011 dated 22.11.2011 and lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar. The said order of detention has been approved by the Government vide Govt. order No.Home/PB-V/2508/2011 dated 27.11.2011. Then in view of opinion of the Advisory Board, detention order has been confirmed and detenue ordered to remain in detention for 24 months. 2. Wife of the detenue has sought quashment of the order of detention on the grounds enumerated in the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the detenue is a peace loving citizen, has never indulged in any activity prejudicial to the security of the State, he is 59 years old, the order of detention has been passed in breach of the procedural safeguards, there has been non application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority and the material forming base for the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the detenue which renders order of detention as bad. 4. The respondents have not filed the counter affidavit but have produced the detention records. 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detenue is innocent, on the strength of the records as produced, is found to be incorrect because the detenue is shown to have been linked with the unlawful activities right from the inception of militancy in the Valley i.e. from the year 1990. He has been detained twice under Public Safety Act in the year 2005 and 2007. Various cases, such as FIR No. 13/2005 P/S Baramulla under Section 13 ULA Act, FIR No.24/2007 under Section 307 RPC, 7/25 Arms Act P/S Sheeri, FIR No.51/2007 under Section 7/25 Arms Act P/S Boniyar, have been registered against him. Despite all this, he is stated to have continued to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State. On 13th of October, 2011, two respectables, as named in the grounds of detention, had lodged a complaint with the police that their two sons, under the garb of invitation on 9.10.2011, were taken by the detenue and allegedly carried them across the border for arms training for which FIR No.55/2001 under Section 13 Unlawful Activities Act has been registered in Police Station, Boniyar. Both youths were arrested by Police Uri on 16.10.2011 while infiltrating near LOC and in this regard case FIR under Section 83/2011 under Section 2/3 Egress & IMCO has been registered with Police Station, Uri. At the time of detention, he had been arrested in connection with case FIR No.55/2011 P/S Boniyar, so was in judicial custody. 6. The activities of the detenue as noticed in the grounds of detention coupled with the registration of the cases from time to time sufficiently demonstrate as to how the detenue has been indulging in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State. 7. Next contention of the learned counsel is that the detenue has neither been given option to file representation as against his detention nor material forming base for the grounds of detention has been furnished to the detenue. 8. This contention pales into insignificance in view of the position of records as produced. The records as produced would indicate that the relevant papers regarding his detention under Public Safety Act have been handed over to him, same have been read over and explained to the detenue in Urdu/Kashmiri language. In support thereof, he has signed the report of compliance as prepared by the concerned officer. Furthermore, he has signed the receipt vis-a-vis grounds/relevant papers of detention. The said receipt would indicate that 17 leaves (documents) have been handed over to him. Records would also indicate that the copies of FIR, copies of interrogation report and other like documents, in total 17 leaves, have been delivered to the detenue and he has also been informed specifically that he can make representation against his detention. He has signed the same receipt, therefore, contention of the learned counsel that the detenue has not been informed about his right of making representation against the detention or that he has not been furnished the material forming base for the detention, is refuted. 9. The procedure has been properly followed. The order of detention does not suffer from any illegality, as such, up held. Resultantly, this petition being without merit is dismissed. 10. Detention records as produced shall be returned back to the learned counsel for the respondents.