Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 174 (JK)

Aqif Ahmed Bhat v. State Of J&K

2020-03-18

RAJESH BINDAL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached this court impugning the detention order dated 20.03.2019 vide which he was ordered to be detained under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the Act) for a period of three months. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised three-fold arguments. He submitted that the detaining authority did not have any power to mention the period of detention as it could be maximum for a period of 12 days, if seen in the light of provisions of Section 8(4) of the Act. He further submitted that on the date when the impugned order of detention was passed, the petitioner was already in custody in FIR No. 82/2018. The order does not mention as to what was the apprehension of the authorities on account of which the petitioner was ordered to be detained when he was already in custody. The order also does not suggest that there was any apprehension of breach of peace in case the petitioner was released on bail. In fact, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR. He was released on 20.03.2019 on account of default of the prosecution to present challan. 3. It was further argued that complete material on the basis of which the order of detention was passed was not supplied to enable him to make proper and effective representation to the Advisory Board. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no error in the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate. The period of three months has been mentioned. It was the tentative period in case the detention was not approved by the Advisory Board, the law would have taken its own course. Merely on that basis, the detention order cannot be said to be bad. All the documents accompanying the detention order were supplied to the petitioner at the time of his detention. The petitioner was at liberty to move representation to the Board which he failed to do and has directly approached this court. However, he did not dispute the fact that the factum of release of the petitioner on bail has not been mentioned in the order of detention. 5. The petitioner was at liberty to move representation to the Board which he failed to do and has directly approached this court. However, he did not dispute the fact that the factum of release of the petitioner on bail has not been mentioned in the order of detention. 5. He further submitted that the prayer made in the present petition has been rendered infructuous as the maximum period for which the detention could be ordered under Section 8 of the Act is one year and the period is going to expire on 19.03.2020. 6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the paper book. 7. No doubt both the counsels for the parties have raised issues in support and against the impugned order of detention of the petitioner which was passed on March 20, 2019. The fact remains that the life of a detention order passed under Public Safety Act is one year which expires on 19.03.2020. As during the pendency of the present petition, the period is going to expire, this court would not like to deal with the issues on merits for academic purpose only as no effective additional relief is admissible to the petitioner except his release. The same is consequence of lapse of period of detention otherwise. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.