SHABIR AHMAD PARRAY Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this petition is the detention order bearing No.19/DMP/PSA/20 dtd. 13/7/2020, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama (respondent No.2) whereby petitioner has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The said order has been passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of his powers under Sec. 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the grounds that at the time when the impugned order of detention was passed, he was already in custody in connection with FIR No.18/2020 for offences under Sec. 18, 19, 20 and 39 UL A (P) Act 2 of Police Station, Khrew, and, as such, there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the detention order. It is further contended that the material forming basis of the grounds of detention in the form of copy of FIR, copy of dossier, copies of statements of witnesses recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. have not been supplied to the detenue thereby curtailing his right to make an effective representation against impugned order of detention. Lastly, it has been contended that the grounds of detention are replica of the police dossier which clearly establishes that there is non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate, Pulwama) has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents. In the said affidavit respondents have submitted that they have followed all the constitutional and statutory safeguards while passing the impugned order of detention. It is contended that the activities of the detenue have been found prejudicial to the security of the State and, as such, the detaining authority with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the state was compelled to pass the impugned order of detention. Respondents have submitted that all material which formed basis of the impugned detention order and the grounds of detention were furnished to the detenue and that the detaining authority has applied its mind while passing the impugned 3 order of detention. To support its contentions, the detaining authority has produced the detention record.