LAWS(J&K)-1990-4-9

GH DIN MOHD Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On April 10, 1990
Gh Din Mohd Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this Habeaus Corpus Petition the petitioner wants the court to quash his detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, in terms of Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act of 1978 (here in -after referred to as the Act.)

(2.) THE petitioner who is said to be of ripe age was posted in C.I.D. Wing of the State Police Department at Jammu in August. 1990 and detained in the Joint Interrogation Centre Jammu The inquiry revealed that he had been booked under F.I.R. No. 2 of 1990 for offences under Sections 3/4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter called the TADA) read with other offences. The petitioner applied for bail and the designated court vide its order dated 10th October 1990 enlarged him to bail by virtue of a detailed order passed on 10th of October, 1990. Mean while the petitioner seems to have been shifted from Joint Interrogation Centre Jammu to Police Station Nawabad. It is averred that when the above mentioned bail order was served upon the authorities the petitioner son was told -that the petitioner had been arrested and detained in Nawabad Police Station in connection with a case registered under fir.no: 148 of 1990 in the said Police Station under Sections 302/307.212/34 and 120 -B of the R PC and 3/4 of the TADA read with 3/25 of Arms Act. The petitioner again under took an exercise of motion of bail before the -court of First Additional Sessions Judge. Jammu who called for the report from the concerned police. On finding that the accused was under detention in TADA the Additional Session judge.Jammu declined no pass any orders As a result of this theâ„¢ petitioner again preferred application before the designated court under TADA. The said Court, .for the second time passed a detailed order on 3.11 -1990 and enlarged the petitioner on bail After furnishing the requiste Bail Bonds m terms of the Court order, the release order was served upon In -charge District Jail Kathua where the .petitioner had been shifted. The petitioner was told that he could not be released despite this order also as he had been detained under the provisions of Public Safety Act of 1978. The petitioner vas served with the grounds of detention under the said Act vide District, Magistrate, Jammus order No .351 -63/P3A dated 30 -10 -1990 On birds eye view of the grounds of detention furnished by the District Magistrate, Jammu it is .manifest that the petitioner is alleged "to have developed liason with the subversive elements of Kashmir. He is alleged to have induced one Shri Kaka Hussain who is said to be Youngman of desperate .character to create connection with JFLF subversives and start terrorist activities in Jammu, He is alleged to hive instigated said Kaka Hussain to indulge in indiscriminate firing for killing innocent people of Jammu with a view to achieve their ends, In April. 1990 he contacted the said Kaka Hussain and induced him to proceed to Srinagar for contacting JKLF for arranging arms and ammunition. It was according to these grounds, at the behest of the petitioner that said Kaka Hussain visited Srinagar on 9 -5 -1990 and 11/12 of July, 1990, and on the latter date explosive material was brought by Kaka Hussain from Srinagar. It was with the petitioners guidance that the said Kaka Hussain is said to have carried out terrorist -activities in Gumat Bazzar Chowk. Jammu on 19th of July, 1990 where as a result of shooting two persons lost their lives and many other were injured by indiscriminate firing.

(3.) REGARDING the factum of arrest of the petitioner the grounds of detention indicate only as under. - "On 25 -8 -1990 you were arrested in case FIR No 2/90 under Section 3/4 TADA.14/F.A. 3/6 IPS. 4/5 ESA, 3/ EAO,120 -B RPC Police Station JIC Jammu and are still in custody In the case of your release on bail you will prove a grave threat to the security of the State." The grounds taken in the petition are: - a .That the detaining authority has passed the impugned order of detention without proper application of mind in as far the grounds do not show the awareness of the detaining authority about the full facts after detention; b. that grounds do not justify the petitioners detention as the same are vague and indefinite: c. The grounds are cryptic as these do not answer the same question as to who are the persons with whom the petitioner has developed liason? At what point of time did he develop such liason? And where did he do so.