MOHD SADIQ BHAT Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAMMAD Sadiq Bhat, has been detained under Order No. 20 of 1999 dated 09 -07 -1999, of District Magistrate Baramulla for a period of fourteen months under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. This order is under challenge in this petition. Though the order is challenged on number of pleaded grounds, but the counsel for petitioner submits that he is pressing the quashment of detention order on two grounds. First, the detenue has not applied for bail before any Court in FIR 106 of 1999 registered at Police Station, Pattan, yet the detaining authority has concluded that there is likelihood of detenue being released on bail and his thus being at large would be prejudicial to the security of the State. The detaining authority has not applied its mind and had no material before it to draw satisfaction about the detenues alleged prejudicial activities, detrimental to the security of the State. Second, the detenue has not been supplied order of detention, grounds of detention and the material referred therein to enable him to make an effective representation.

(2.) RESPONDENTS , through detaining authority, Respondents No. 2, have controverted the alleged grounds of challenge. In terms of the counter filed and submissions of Government Advocate, Mr. Gazanfar Ali, the detaining authority apprehended that the detenue may get bail under punitive law and keeping in view his activities, allegedly highly prejudicial to the security of the State, the detaining authority clamped the detention order on him so as to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. In answer to the other submissions of the petitionerâ„¢s counsel, the Government Advocate submits that the detenue was informed of his right to make representation and was served with order of detention as also the copy of grounds. It was communicated to him. The order was read over and fully explained to the detenue in Urdu/Kashmiri language. FIR has not been relied upon for purpose of detention in this case, though referred in the grounds. For this reason copy of the FIR was not supplied to the detenue.

(3.) IN terms of submissions, upon hearing the parties, examination of record reveals that the detenue Mohammad Sadiq Bhat was initially arrested in FIR 106/99 under section 120 -A -121B, 212, 109 RPC, 7/25 IAA & 3/4 ESA of Police Station Pattan. Petitioner comes from a family which has the history of serving in the Police Department, He was appointed in the Police Department back in July, 1991. His wife is also a police Constable. In view of the positions he held and the confidence he enjoyed of his officers, he was attached on Escort duty with one Mubark Ganie, S.P. Srinagar. During this posting he came in contact and established links with Albadder Organisation and through their named linkman engaged in providing shelter to militants at Srinagar and at his home town of Safapora. He also indulged in supplying various articles of utility to militants. He also served as a conduit between over and underground elements of the outfit and was also engaged in transportation of arms and ammunition as also in distribution of the money, etc. For the various acts of omission and commission, the detenue was arrested in the regular case (FIR 106/99, registered at Police Station Pattan). Fearing that the petitioner may succeed to come out on bail and on the likelihood, that this concession of bail may be misused, so as to continue to engage himself in subversive and other activities, prejudicial to the security of the State, the detaining authority passed the detention order. Merely because, in such circumstances, petitioner did not apply for bail, it cannot be assumed that the authority did not consider his arrest and punitive detention in the above regular case. It cannot be said that there was no material for the detaining authority to derive its subjective satisfaction, it cannot be also canvassed that detaining authority failed to apply his mind while coming to the conclusion that the detention of petitioner is imperative and warranted so as to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.