AB RASHID Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LEH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Rehmat -ullah alias Tsangrupa of Turtuk, Nobra has been arrested on 05 -06 -1999 in criminal case registered as FIR No. 11/99 U/s 122 RPC, 3/27 LA Act, 2/3 EIMCO, 4/5 Exp. Subs. Act (at P/S Nobra). During custody in the above case District Magistrate Leh (respondent No. 1) detained said Rehmat -Ullah U/s 8 of J&K P.S. Act, 1978 on the ground that his detention is necessary with a view to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. An order of detention thereto bearing No. 228/PSA of 1999 dated: 27 -12 -1999 was passed. The subject was taken in preventive detention from punitive custody on 28 -12 -1999. This order is under challenge in this petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has pressed following grounds and made submissions thereto in support of his contention that the order of detention and consequent detention is vitiated. First that the document(s)/material referred in the grounds have not been supplied to the detenue thereby the detenue is disable to make a representation. Second that notwithstanding that the detenue was granted bail by CJM Leh on 04 -08 -1999 in the regular case FIR No. 11/99 of P/S Nobra, the detenue was taken in preventive custody without showing awareness about the bail order. No mention thereof is made even in grounds notwithstanding that the bail had been furnished and accepted by the court. No compelling reasons have been given to warrant detention under the provisions of J&K P.S. Act, 1978 when the detenue facing trial in the regular case, is in custody. Third that the detenue has not been supplied the order of detention and grounds there for. The detenue an illiterate not able to understand English language, has neither been explained the grounds in Ladakhi language which he understood nor supplied transcription thereof. The detenue is prejudiced on that count to make a meaningful representation.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed counter. While countering the petition allegations, continuous detention under the impugned detention order and execution of the order on 28 -12 -1999 is admitted. The detenue is stated to have been supplied order and grounds of detention. It is further stated that the grounds were read over and explained to the detenue in Urdu, Balti, Ladakhi which the detenue understood. The detention is stated to be based on the grounds and no other material or recovery is stated to be relied on. It is further stated that the detention order was passed only because there was apprehension of detenue getting bail in the regular case. Detenues being at large is a threat to the security of the State. Learned counsel has made submission in line with and in support of above counter allegations placed on record on affidavit of the detaining authority.