JAGAT RAM ARYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under S. 491, Criminal P. C., submitted by one Jaget Ram Aryan who is this time a detenu in the Central Jail Srinagar. In his application the detenu submits that he was suffering from some lung trouble and had gone for X-Ray examination to Jammu where he was advised by his Medical Adviser to go to some cooler place. In pursuance of this advice, the applicant proceeds, that he went to Ramnagar and stayed there with his son-in-law for some days, and then came back to Udhampur en route to Kishtwar on 29th Jeth 2008. In his application he further states that at Udhampur while he was waiting for a lorry to carry him to Batote on 30th Jeth 2008, he was called to the office of the District Magistrate Udhampur where he was informed by him that he was holding meetings with Sangh people in Udhampur and thus making his presence there undesirable, and he was ordered to leave Udhampur district within 24 hours. According to the detenu he was served a written order and was made to sign it in token of his having taken notice of it. Thereupon he says that he left the District Magistrate's Court and was proceeding towards the lorry stand when he was again called back and another order, and this time, of detention was served on him. The applicant states further that he is politically-minded Harijan and has been taking part in politics for the last 16 years. As a member of the Assembly the detenu says that he was responsible for the successful passage of a number of useful pieces of legislation such as the Removal of Beggar rules, compensation to workmen etc. He also affirms that he is a firm believer in Hindu Muslim unity and during the last disturbances he was deputed by both Hindus and Muslims of Kishwar to carry their submissions to the Government of Kashmir regarding the posting of military in that area. In the end he says that he was accompanied by his daughter to Udhampur but after his arrest he was not even allowed to meet her, and he knows nothing about her whereabouts. This application is supported by an affidavit.

(2.) As against this, the learned Assistant Advocate General produced before me an affidavit by Agha Nasir. Agha Nasir I hear is the District Magistrate in Udhampur, but he has not described himself as such in the affidavit. This affidavit I shall discuss in detail at its proper place. But meanwhile I would like to make reference to some ill-conceived allegations that have been made by the applicant in his application about the District Magistrate Udhampur, which to say the least about them, are simply wild and reckless. May be that the applicant is chafing under a supposed or real wrong done to him. May be that these allegations are the effusions of an afflicted heart, but no amount of affliction, even genuine, can justify the use of unseemly language. Hard words break no bones, but they certainly leave behind a very bitter taste in the mouth. Recklessness in expression, use of wild language is to my mind quite unworthy of a person who claims to be a politician. One would expect a right sort of behaviour on behalf of politically minded people. Sobriety in expression, coolness in thought and strict regard for truth must be the guiding factors in the life of politicians particularly in these days of democracy when we find politicians charged with very great responsibilities. I have no hesitation in placing on record that the allegations made against the person of the District Magistrate are not at all true.

(3.) But much though I deprecate the attempt of the detenu at dragging the person of the Udhampur District Magistrate into the present controversy yet I am of the opinion that this application is going to succeed. In arriving at the conclusions I have solely drawn upon the detention order and the affidavit of the detaining authority, I have relied only on those statements of the detenu which have either been supported by Agha Nasir's affidavit or not contradicted by it specifically. Now in the order of detention it is given that the detaining authority was satisfied through police and other sources that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant had acted and was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety and peace. It is a well settled principle of law that under S. 3 of the Public Security Act the sufficiency or insufficiency of material which might have satisfied the detaining authority effecting the detention of a person is a matter for the decision of that authority alone which passed the detention. In fact this is the view that has been expressed by me as early as 2005 in a similar case 'Devi Saran v. State', Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 92 of 2005. To this view I adhere even at the present moment and I make no apology in quoting here in extenso a passage from the said judgment :