Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 866 (JK)

Farooq Ahmed Bhat v. State of Jammu And Kashmir

2017-09-19

ALOK ARADHE

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Petition is already admitted for hearing. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally. 2. In this Habeas Corpus petition, petitioner inter-alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama by which detenu has been detained under the provisions of Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenu is an illiterate person and he was neither supplied material nor was apprised of his right to make an effective representation with regard to order of detention. It is also submitted that the order of detention suffers from the non-application of mind, inasmuch as, the order of detention does not refer to the fact that the detenu was released on bail in connection with offences registered against him under sections 307, 109 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act. It is also argued that the documents which form the basis for passing the order of detention has not been supplied to the detenu. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra & Anor (1986) 4 SCC 771 and Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1999 SC 3051 . 4. On the other hand, learned AAG has produced the record and has submitted that the detention order does not suffer from any infirmity. It is also urged that the detenu was apprised of his right to file representation and subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority cannot be substituted by this court. It is also submitted that even assuming that the documents have not been supplied to the detenu, the same would vitiate the order of detention only when non supply of documents has prevented the detenu from filing an effective representation. In support of his submissions learned AAG has relied on the decisions reported in (2017) 1 SCC 757 titled E. Subbulakshmi v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2003 (II) SLJ 511 titled Gh. Mohd. Bhat v. State and SLJ 2003 (I) 178 titled Bashir Ahmad Lone v. State & Ors. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Mohd. Bhat v. State and SLJ 2003 (I) 178 titled Bashir Ahmad Lone v. State & Ors. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of grounds of detention, it is evident that the detaining authority at the time of passing of the order of detention was aware that the detenu is in custody and there is likelihood of him getting bail, therefore, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the detention order suffers from vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as, the detaining authority was not aware about the factum of release of the detenue on bail, cannot be accepted. 6. From the perusal of record, I find that the grounds have been explained to the detenue in the language which he understands. It is the case of the detenu himself that he is illiterate and, therefore, non-supply of grounds of detention to him in the language which he understands is not mandatory when the detenu is an illiterate and the grounds of detention explained to him in the language which he understands. In this connection reference may be made to Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rustum Wani vs. State of J&K 2002 (2) SLJ 479, therefore, the contention that the grounds of detention have not been supplied to the detenu is of no assistance to the detenu in the fact situation of the case. 7. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that non-supply of documents vitiates the order of detention only when the non-supply of documents has prevented him from filing an effective representation. There is no material on record to show that the detenue has been deprived to file an effective representation against the proposed order of detention. It is equally well settled proposition of law that this court cannot evaluate the nature of grounds and sufficiency thereof cannot review the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for the view taken by the detaining authority. (See Ghulam Mohd. Bhat vs. State 2003 (II) SLJ 511) the Apex Court in the case of E. Subbulakshmi (supra) has added that this court cannot sit in an appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing grounds of detention. 8. (See Ghulam Mohd. Bhat vs. State 2003 (II) SLJ 511) the Apex Court in the case of E. Subbulakshmi (supra) has added that this court cannot sit in an appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing grounds of detention. 8. In view of the preceding analysis I do not find, any merit in this petition and same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Registry to return the record to learned AAG.