LAWS(J&K)-2001-3-10

NISAR AHMAD NAJAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On March 13, 2001
Nisar Ahmad Najar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NISARAHMAD Najar on whose behalf this HC petition is filed by his father was arrested in March 2000 in FIR 37/2000 under Section 7/25 I.A. Act Registered at Police Station Soura. While under punitive custody, District Magistrate Srinagar under his order no. DMS/ PSA/18 dated 20 -5 -2000 ordered preventive detention of said Nissar Ahmad Najar under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. This order and consequent detention of the said detenue is under challenge in this petition. Though possibly all available grounds within the parameters of Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act have been taken to challenge the legality of the detention, but petitioners counsel submits that the two main grounds on which he is relying to question the legality of the detention are.

(2.) FIRST that the grounds of detention as also the material on which the alleged grounds of detention are based have not been at all supplied to the petitioner. Even, the grounds of detention have not been read over and explained to the petitioner in the language which he understood, i.e. Kashmiri. Being illiterate, he understands no language other than Kashmiri. He has been prejudiced. In absence of communication of grounds petitioner is prejudiced to make representation to the Government against the detention.

(3.) SECOND , notwithstanding that the State and its police department were having physical custody of the petitioner from March 2000, the detention order was passed about two months thereafter and yet the order of detention was executed on 7 -7 -2000. In any case 11/2 month was taken to execute the order of detention, even though the detenue was in the custody of the Police and the State in a regular case FIR 37/2000 of Police Station Soura (ibid). The other grounds pleaded and taken the counsel concedes are more ornamental rather than of substance to sustain any challenge to impugned detention order.