TRILOK RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioners case was that he was a respectable law -abiding citizen of India and a State subject of J&K State and that he was arrested on 11.7.80 by the JK Police and was confined as a detenue under the orders of the Distt Magistrate Jammu in the Central Jail. He has averred that the grounds of detention were supplied to him after a long time after his detention. A copy of the grounds given to the petitioner has been attached with the petition. He has next averred that some 70 days back he was taken into custody by the police and kept in the interrogation Centre for 15 days. He applied for bail to the Addl. Sessions Judge. Jammu, which was refused. Thereafter he was informed by the Jail Authorities that he has been detained under section 8 of the Public Safety Act of the Jammu and Kashmir State and the grounds of detention were served on him on 12.9. 1980. The petitioner have further averred that he was a poor harijan boy and almost illiterate and therefore, could not understand the grounds for detention which were given to him in English language. The petitioner could not therefore, make a representation to the State of J&K Govt. as he was not capable of understanding and reading the grounds of his detention supplied to him. The grounds supplied to him according to the petitioner, are fantastic, vague and imaginary and the petitioner has claimed that in view of these submissions, his detention was illegal and that orders be issued for his release.

(3.) THE District Magistrate, Jammu, has submitted reply affidavit in which he has admitted that the petitioner was under interrogation for some time and a case against him under the Enemy Agents ordinance had been registered. It has been stated that the petitioner in connection with the Enemy Agents Ordinance case against him was in the custody of the Supdt. Central Jail, Jammu. The District Magistrate has stated that the grounds of detention were communicated by the answering respondent on 11.9.80 to the Supdt. Central Jail for communicating the same on the petitioner who on his turn endorsed the grounds of detention to Dy, Supdt. Central Jail for the same are the petitioner on 12.1.80. The Deputy Supdt Central Jail Jammu read over the contents of the grounds of detention to the petitioner and explained the same to him in the language which the detenue understood well. It has been further stated in the reply affidavit that the grounds on which the petitioners detention was ordered were definite, relevant and valid. The allegations made to the contrary were baseless and unfounded. The order of the detention was not made mal a fide or in exercise of the abuse of power or fraud on Statute or to take vengeance upon the petitioner nor it was passed in exercise of colourable powers and purposes. The detention of the petitioner was ordered purely in the interest of the Security of the State and for no ulterior purposes whatsoever. The Govt. also approved the order of detention of the petitioner vide communication No. JDN -PLO dt 11.9.1980.