Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 155 (JK)

Altaf Ahmad Rather v. Union Territory of J&K

2025-03-24

SANJAY DHAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged order of detention bearing No.24/DMB/PSA/2023 dated 15.04.2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla (hereinafter to be referred as the Detaining Authority), whereby he has been placed under preventive detention in order to stop him from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the ground that the said order has been passed without application of mind. It has further been contended that there were no compelling reasons before the Detaining Authority for passing the impugned detention order as the petitioner had already been booked and arrested in FIR No. 8/2023 for offences under sections 13 UAPA Act, 506 and 153a IPC registered with Police Station, Pattan. 3. It has further been contended that there was no live link and proximity between the impugned order of detention and the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention. It has also been contended that the respondent has not adhered to the statutory and constitutional imperatives while executing the warrant of detention upon the petitioner as whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention have not been furnished to him nor the translated version thereof has been furnished to him. It has further been contended that the petitioner has not been informed about his right of make a representation against the impugned order of detention. 4. The instant petition has been contested by the respondent by filing its counter affidavit. In its counter affidavit, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner is an OWG of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a banned terrorist organization, which is operating in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was found involved in FIR 8/2023 of Police Station, Pattan and his activities were found to be highly prejudicial to security of the State. It has also been submitted that the whole of the material forming basis of grounds of detention was furnished to the petitioner and its contents were read over and explained to him in the language which he understands. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was made aware about his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority as well as to the Government. In order to lend support to the defence raised by the respondent, detention record has been produced before this Court. 5. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was made aware about his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority as well as to the Government. In order to lend support to the defence raised by the respondent, detention record has been produced before this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. The first contention that has been raised by the petitioner is that because an FIR was lodged against him as such, there were no compelling reasons for the Detaining Authority to pass the impugned order of detention. 7. In this regard, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it comes to the fore that the petitioner was found involved in FIR No. 8/2023 and upon his arrest, he was bailed out by the competent court. It has been noted by the Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention that there is apprehension that after being released on bail, keeping in view the security scenario in Valley, there is apprehension that the petitioner would get himself involved in issuing threats to PRI’s street vendors and outside workers. This apprehension of the Detaining Authority is based upon intelligence inputs. In the face of the fact that the petitioner had already been enlarged on bail by the competent court and there were intelligence inputs before the Detaining Authority that the petitioner would indulge in activities which are threat to security of the State, the Detaining Authority was justified in passing the impugned detention order against the petitioner. The subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority on the basis of the previous conduct of the petitioner and the intelligence inputs available before it, cannot be a subject matter of judicial review in these proceedings. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any merit. 8. It has been next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of detention has been passed on the basis of past and stale incidents. The contention in this regard is without any merit for the reasons that the petitioner was found involved in FIR No. 2008/2023 which relates to an incident of January, 2023, whereas the impugned order of detention has been passed in April, 2023 i.e, only a few months after the registration of the aforesaid FIR. The contention in this regard is without any merit for the reasons that the petitioner was found involved in FIR No. 2008/2023 which relates to an incident of January, 2023, whereas the impugned order of detention has been passed in April, 2023 i.e, only a few months after the registration of the aforesaid FIR. It is recorded in the grounds of detention that intelligence inputs were received after grant of bail in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of their intelligence report it was apprehended that the petitioner would involve himself in the activities prejudicial to security of the State. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention are stale or that there is any time lag between the said incidents and the impugned order of detention. 9. Regarding supply of material which formed basis of grounds of detention, the respondent has relied upon the report of the execution of order of detention upon the petitioner, which is duly signed by him. As per this document, the petitioner has received ten leaves comprising warrant of detention, grounds of detention and other documents which would include the dossier of detention and copies of FIR along with relevant documents, on the basis of which, the involvement of the petitioner is shown in the said FIR. It is also recorded in the execution report that the contents of the material were explained to the petitioner in Urdu, Hindi and Kashmiri languages. The petitioner, as per the record is an illiterate person, therefore, providing of translated version of the material would not have served any purpose in his case. In such a situation, the only option available with the Detaining Authority was to make the petitioner understand the contents of the material supplied to him in the language which he understands. This is what has been done by the Detaining Authority in the present case. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is therefore, without any merit. 10. The contention of the petitioner that he was not informed about his right to make representation is also without any basis. Copy of notice of detention served upon the petitioner clearly indicates that he has been informed about his right to make representation against the detention order both before the Detaining Authority as well as before the Government. 11. 10. The contention of the petitioner that he was not informed about his right to make representation is also without any basis. Copy of notice of detention served upon the petitioner clearly indicates that he has been informed about his right to make representation against the detention order both before the Detaining Authority as well as before the Government. 11. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. 12. Record of detention be returned to counsel for the respondents.