MOHD AYUB RATHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus petition moved on behalf of detenue Mohd. Ayub Rather by his father throw challenge to detention order No. 60/DMP/2000 dated: 13.12.2000 of District Magistrate, Pulwama (respondent No. 2) ordering detention of said Mohd. Ayub Rather U/s 8 of J&K P.S. Act 197.8 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. Counter has been filed by the respondents through detaining authority (respondent No.2)

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner in terms has assailed the detention order and questions the detention on the ground that the detenue is a psychiatric patient with known history of dis -order and is even registered with psychiatric diseases Hospital. Being of unsound mind he is not in a position to know and understand, confining him in detention is illegal. Besides, there has been inordinate delay in the execution of detention order and no explanation or reasons given therefore. The detention order is passed on 13.12.2000 while it is executed and detenue taken in preventive detention only on 3.1.2001. Though the detenue was arrrested in a regular case FIR NO. 85/2000 registered with P/s Tral and that he was given bail by the. judicial Magistrate on 1.12.2000 on the ground of un -soundness of mind, yet the detaining authority has not shown awareness of the bail matter as also of his unsoundness of mind thereby impugned order suffers from non -application of mind.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents Mr. A.M. Watali, GA submits that from record it is found that the detenue is suffering from psychiatric problem and is a registered patient with psychiatric Hospital, Srinagar. But all the same the counsel submits that the detenue is provided medical treatment depending on the eventuality of requirement for such treatment. The counsel further concedes that there is delay of about three weeks in execution of the detention order and that he is not able to explain or give any reason why so much time was taken to execute the order except that the counsel submits that the time was taken in processing the matter before the Advisory Board and passing of confirmation orders by the Govt. under P.S. Act. Counsel further submits that the detaining authority was not aware about the passing of the bail order in the regular case and therefore, same has not reflected in the grounds or the order. But all the same the counsel submits that the detaining authority was aware of registration of regular case and yet thought fit to pass the detention order.