GHULAM MOHAMMAD BANGI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE to order No.01/DMB/PSA/2011 dated 02.04.2011, of District Magistrate, Baramulla respondent No.2 herein, whereby one Shri Gh Mohd Bangi son of Gh Ahmad Bangi resident of Gania Hamam Baramulla (herein after referred to as detenue) has been placed under preventive detention, must succeed for following reasons:

(2.) THE grounds of detention make reference to case - FIR No.39/1984 under section 153- A, 336, 148, 149, 427 RPC; FIR No.147/1996 under section 7/25 A.Act, 3/5 Exp. Subs Act; FIR No.62/2006 under section 212, 121 RPC; FIR No.152/2010 under section 148, 149, 336, 427, 323 RPC; FIR NO.153/2010 under section 148, 149, 336,332, 427 RPC; FIR No.233/2010 under section 148, 149, 336, 427 RPC at Police Station Baramulla, to have been registered against the detenue. THE involvement of detenue in the aforementioned cases appears to have heavily weighed with detaining authority while making detention order. THE detention record reveals that none of the documents referred to in the detention order was ever supplied to detenue. THE endorsement on the reverse of the detention order made by the Executing Officer SI Abdul Hamid No.8218/NGO of P/S Baramulla, at the time of execution of detention order does not make a reference to the documents in question and does not record that such documents were supplied to detenue at the time of execution of detention order or immediately thereafter. THE detention record does not indicate that copies of aforementioned First Information Reports, statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material collected in connection with investigation of aforesaid cases, were ever supplied to detenue. It is pertinent to point out that the detaining authority, in grounds of detention after detailing background in which aforesaid cases were registered against detenue, proceeds to opine It is manifest from factual position as at pre-pares(pre-paras) that your activities are highly pre-judicial to the security of the State..

(3.) IN the instant case the detenue along with his associates is also alleged to be responsible for pelting stones upon police officials, damaging vehicles and injuring police/CRPF personnel. The detenue is not informed with sufficient clarity the exact allegations levelled and furnished the particulars of youths/associates, who are stated to be responsible for indulging in stone pelting, nor the particulars of police/CRPF personnel, who are alleged to have been attacked by detenue and his associates by pelting stones on them nor the details of vehicles alleged to have been damaged. The detenue, in absence of such details, could not be expected to have been in a position to give his side of story and persuade respondent No.2 and other respondents that the allegations against the detenue were bereft of any basis. To sum up, the grounds of detention that constitute basis for the detention order in question are ambiguous, vague, uncertain and hazy. A person of ordinary prudence would not be in a position to explain his stand in reply to the grounds of detention detailed by respondent No. 2. The detenue has been kept guessing about the facts and events that weighed with respondent No. 2 and prompted respondent No. 2 to record subjective satisfaction regarding sufficiency of the material to warrant preventive detention of the detenue. These are only few instances to illustrate that the grounds of detention are vague and ambiguous and bound to keep the detenue guessing about what really was intended to be conveyed by the detaining authority. It is well settled law that even where one of the grounds relied upon by the Detaining Authority to order detention is vague and ambiguous, Constitutional and Statutory right of the detenue to make a representation against his detention are taken to have been violated. Reference in this regard may be made to Dr.Ram Krishan Versus The State of Delhi and others, AIR, 1953,; Chaju Ram Versus State of JAMMU AND KASHMIR, AIR 1971 SC 263; Mohd Yousuf Rather Versus State of J&K, AIR 1979 SC 1925; and Syed Aasiya INdrabi Versus State of JAMMU AND KASHMIR and others, 2009 (I) SLJ 2009 219.