Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1001 (JK)

Mohammad Shafi Dar v. State of J&K

2018-12-19

RASHID ALI DAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. By the instant petition, petitioner has sought quashment of the order of detention bearing No.04/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 04.07.2018. In terms of said order, Mohammad Shafi Dar (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been taken into preventive custody by invoking powers under Clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act and so has been lodged in Kot Bhalwal Jail, Jammu. 2. The petitioner’s case, as set out in the petition, is that the detenue has been implicated in FIR Nos.65/2017, 66/2017 and 08/2018 but despite that detention order impugned was slapped upon him. The respondents are stated to have ignored to provide material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention and thus deprived the detenue of his Constitutional and Statutory rights. Grounds of detention are stated to be vague, baseless, non-existent and unfounded. 3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and same were read over and explained to him. The grounds taken by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. The learned counsel for the respondents has made available detention records to lend support to the case set up in the counter affidavit. 4. The main ground, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that as per grounds of detention the detenue has been booked in FIR Nos.65/2017, 66/2017 and 08/2018 and so was in custody of police authorities when the order of detention has been passed. No application for grant of bail had been moved on behalf of the detenue before any court. There was no requirement of passing the order of detention. No compelling reasons have been mentioned for passing the order of detention. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 27 of the judgment Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 244 has held as under:- “27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 27 of the judgment Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 244 has held as under:- “27. In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground. However, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise the bald statement of the authority cannot be believed’. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in para 13 of the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7926 of 2011) captioned Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., decided on 4th January, 2012, has held as under:- “13. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of respective parties, we are inclined to hold that the extra-ordinary powers of detaining an individual in contravention of the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Constitution was not warranted in the instant case, where the grounds of detention do not disclose any material which was before the detaining authority, other than the fact that there was every likelihood of Yumman Somendro being released on bail in connection with the cases in respect of which he had been arrested, to support the order of detention. Article 21 of the Constitution enjoins that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except, according to procedure established by law. In the instant case, although the power is vested with the concerned authorities, unless the same are invoked and implemented in a justifiable manner, such action of the detaining authority cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, such a detention order is an exception to the provisions of Article 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution’. 7. In the instant case, although the power is vested with the concerned authorities, unless the same are invoked and implemented in a justifiable manner, such action of the detaining authority cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, such a detention order is an exception to the provisions of Article 21 and 22(2) of the Constitution’. 7. It shall also be apposite to quote Para 5 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U. P. and Others, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1691, has held as under:- “5. The question as to whether and in what circumstances an order for preventive detention can be passed against a person who is already in custody has had been engaging the attention of this court since it state first came up for consideration before a Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw vs District Magistrate Burdwan to eschew prolixity we refrain from detailing all those cases accept that of Dharmendra Sugan Chand Chelawat v. Union of India wherein a three judge Bench after considering all the earlier relevant decisions including Rameshwar Shaw answered the question in the following words. The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detection can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detailing authority was aware of the fact that the detenue is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenue is already in detention. The expression compelling reasons in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenue is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenue, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.” 8. Since the detenue was in the custody of the police at the time of passing of the order of detention, therefore, question arises for consideration whether an order of detention could be passed on the face of such an eventuality? The answer to this question is emphatically “No’, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana & Anr’ ( AIR 2017 SC 2662 ). Para 24 of the said judgment is apposite to be quoted herein below:- “24. There is another reason why the detention order is unjustified. It was passed when the accused was in jail in Crime No.221 of 2016. His custody in jail for the said offence was converted into custody under the impugned detention order. The incident involved in this offence is sometime in the year 2002-03. The detenue could not have been detained preventively by taking this stale incident into account, more so when he was in jail. In Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Ors., this Court observed as follows:- “6. On a reading of the grounds, particularly the paragraph which we have extracted above, it is clear that the order of detention was passed as the detaining authority was apprehensive that in case the detenue was released on bail he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area. If the apprehension of the detaining authority was true, the bail application had to be opposed and in case bail was granted, challenge against that order in the higher forum had to be raised. Merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under trial prisoner was likely to get bail an order of detention under the National Security Act should not ordinarily be passed.” 9. Right to liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution can be negated in view of Article 22(3) (b) of the Constitution which is an exception to Article 21 of the Constitution. The said exception authorizes the concerned authorities to pass preventive detention but while passing such orders, the authority concerned is required to be alive to the personal liberty of a person and such power shall be exercised in a manner which may not have the trappings of depriving a person of the guaranteed liberty. The said exception authorizes the concerned authorities to pass preventive detention but while passing such orders, the authority concerned is required to be alive to the personal liberty of a person and such power shall be exercised in a manner which may not have the trappings of depriving a person of the guaranteed liberty. In short an exceptional case has to be made out for passing the order of preventing a person from acting in any manner which shall be prejudicial, in the instant case, to the security of the State but while doing so procedural safeguards are to be respected. Breach in observing the procedural safeguards gives right to the detenue to claim that he has been prejudiced as his liberty has been curtailed de horse the law. In this connection it shall be quite relevant to quote paras 37 and 38 of the judgment rendered by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case captioned “Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244 :- “37. As observed in Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha vide SCC para 5: (SCC p.27) “5. ....The procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenu since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with if any value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard.” As observed by Mr. Justice Douglas of the United States Supreme Court in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath: (US p. 179) “...It is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule of law and rule of whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict procedural safeguards are the main assurances that there will be equal justice under law’. 38. Procedural rights are not based on sentimental concerns for the detenu. The procedural safeguards are not devised to coddle criminals or provide technical loopholes through which dangerous persons escape the consequences of their acts. They are basically society’s assurances that the authorities will behave properly within rules distilled from long centuries of concrete experience’. 10. 38. Procedural rights are not based on sentimental concerns for the detenu. The procedural safeguards are not devised to coddle criminals or provide technical loopholes through which dangerous persons escape the consequences of their acts. They are basically society’s assurances that the authorities will behave properly within rules distilled from long centuries of concrete experience’. 10. In view of the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, the order of detention impugned does not sustain, therefore, other grounds projected in the petition are not required to be dealt with. 11. Having regard to the above discussion, the impugned order of detention impugned is unsustainable, as such, quashed. Further custody of the detenue shall be governed by the orders as shall be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction in the criminal case registered against. 12. Detention record be returned to be learned counsel for the respondents.