GHULAM MOHAMMAD WANI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu challenging the detention order No. DMS/PSAI10 of 2019 dated 16.03.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Budgam, detaining the detenu-Ghulam Mohammad Wani S/o Late Habibullah Wani Rio Ohangam Beerwah, Budgam, District Budgam under Section 8 of J &K Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the security of the state. This detention order has been assailed by the detenu through his wife.

(2.) The detenu has assailed the order of detention on the grounds that; (i) the Detaining Authority had not followed the constitutional and statutory safeguards as provided under Article-22(5) of the Constitution of India and under Section 13 of the Public Safety Act; (ii) the Detaining Authority had not attributed any specific allegation against the detenu and the grounds of detention are vague and bereft of any specific details and thus, the detention is not sustainable; (iii) the detenu had not been communicated all the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority, in the language he understands, while passing the order of detention, thus, preventing him from making an effective and purposeful representation; (iv) the detenu was involved in FIR No. 129/2016 under Sections 148, 341, 336, 332 RPC in the year 2016 and there is no proximate and live link between the allegations made in 2016 and the present detention, the same is bad, therefore, not sustainable; (vi) the detention is also vitiated, there is no application of mind by the Detaining Authority as the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier provided by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police.

(3.) Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has filed et.affida s 'eiias produced the detention record It is submi ed by Him th s e etenu was detained pursuant to the order dated 16 0320 19 in terms of Secti a 8 of the J &K Public Safety Act ' The Detaining Autjr its . t $ bjective satisfaction &KPS after considering all the inaf a1 placed befliim The detenu was detained as his detention was imperative to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state.