Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 60 (JK)

Nizam Ud Din Najar v. Ut of J&K

2025-02-21

SANJAY DHAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1) Through the medium of present petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.15/DMP/PSA/24 dated 04.04.2024, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama- respondent No.2, whereby Nizam-ud-Din Najar (“the detenue”), has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order is, purportedly, passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. 2) The petitioner has contended that the impugned order has been issued without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague and cryptic in nature and the same are based on stale incidents which have no proximate and live link with the detention order. It has been further contended that the safeguards provided under law have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the representation filed by the detenue against his detention has not been considered. 3) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to security of the State. It is pleaded that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him and that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the impugned order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 5) For assailing the impugned order of detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner laid much emphasis on the following grounds: (I) That the grounds of detention are vague, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation. (II) That the representation made by the petitioner against the impugned order of detention has not been considered nor result thereof has been conveyed to the petitioner. (III) That whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner (IV) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, inasmuch as the grounds of detention are replica of police dossier. (V) That the grounds of detention are based upon stale incidents having no proximity and nexus with the impugned order of detention. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7) So far as the first ground of challenge urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the same does not hold any merit. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that there are allegations against the petitioner that he provided shelter and logistic support to the terrorists, namely, Musaib Mushtaq Bhat and Muzamil Nazir Rather, who were neutralized by the security forces. It has been alleged that the petitioner was providing every kind of logistic support like shelter, food, information etc. to the above-named terrorists. In the grounds of detention, it has been clearly indicated that even after release of the petitioner on bail in case FIR No.90/2020, he has again developed relations with the terrorists of banned organization Lashkar-e-Toiba. In the face of these specific allegations against the petitioner in the grounds of detention, it cannot be stated that the same are vague. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is without any merit. In the face of these specific allegations against the petitioner in the grounds of detention, it cannot be stated that the same are vague. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is without any merit. 8) So far as second ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in this regard a perusal of the detention record would reveal that the representation of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board and the same came to be rejected by the Board in its meeting on 23.04.2024. Similarly, the representation filed before the District Magistrate has also been considered and rejected by the said Authority. The result of consideration of the representation has been conveyed to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, vide his communication dated 1 st May, 2024. Thus, it cannot be stated that the representations of the petitioner were not considered nor can it be stated that the result of consideration was not conveyed to him. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is without any merit. 9) That takes us to the contention of the petitioner that whole of the material, on the basis of which impugned order of detention has been passed, has not been furnished to him. In this regard, a perusal of the detention record reveals that the petitioner has executed a receipt in lieu of having received material from the executing officer. As per the said receipt, the petitioner is stated to have received detention order (01 leaf) , notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves) , dossier of detention (04 leaves), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related documents (13 leave), (total 22 leaves). Thus, entire material forming basis of grounds of detention has been furnished to the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, without any merit. 10) The ground relating to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, is also without any merit. If we have a look at the dossier of the sponsoring agency and the grounds of detention, the same by no means can be stated to be in similar language. 10) The ground relating to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, is also without any merit. If we have a look at the dossier of the sponsoring agency and the grounds of detention, the same by no means can be stated to be in similar language. In the grounds of detention, the District Magistrate has, after noticing the background facts, clearly recorded his satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. Even otherwise, mere fact that there is similarity in the contents of the dossier and the grounds of detention does not necessarily mean that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. If from a perusal of the grounds of detention, it is otherwise shown that the detaining authority has applied its mind to the material for recording its and has recorded its subjective satisfaction as to the imperative need of passing the order of detention, similarity in the language of dossier and the grounds of detention would pale into insignificance. 11) Lastly, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been booked on the basis of the incidents which are stale and have no live and proximate link with his imperative detention. In this regard if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to incident dated 20.08.2022. It is also indicated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was apprehended on 07.03.2024 under Section 107 Cr. P. C read with Section 151 of Cr.P.C. to prevent him from indulging in breach of peace and bond was taken from him for maintaining good behaviour but after his release he again developed contacts with the terrorists of banned terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Toiba. These incidents have taken place as late as in March, 2024 and the impugned order has been passed on 04.04.2024. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner has been booked as the basis of stale incidents. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without any substance. 12) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 13) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.