AB QAYOOM KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DETENUE was arrested on 06 -02 -2001 inFIRNo. 11/2001 U/s7/25 IAAregistered at P/S Beerwah Budgam and was later taken in preventive detention under order No. 175 of 2001 dated: 29 -03 -2001of District Magistrate. Budgam (respondent No. 2). This order and the preventive detention is under challenge in this petition. Though number of grounds have been pleaded, the petitioners counsel presses and confines his arguments only to the following two grounds: - i/ That the detenue was admitted to bail by the competent court and while out on bail he was taken in preventive detention on 04 -06 -2001 pursuant to the impugned order dated: 29 -03 -2001. While passing the impugned order this aspect of the case has not been kept in view in the grounds. The grounds are quite vague and run in ominibus terms. There is non -application of mind. Besides the order of detention has been executed after 6th days. There is no explanation or reason given as to why the concerned took long 68 days to execute the order which again shows that there is hardly any proximate link between the grounds and purpose of detention. ii/ Secondly the counsel urges that though the impugned order is passed on material/documents/record produced before the detaining authority but such material/ documents/record including the dossier (referred) is not supplied to detenue which has prejudiced him in making representation to Govt. against the impugned order.

(2.) MR . R.Q. Gadda. GA submit that merely because no mention is made of the detenue having obtained bail in the regular case registered against him at P/S Beerwah, same cannot vitiate the detention order. The order has not been passed mechanically or in routine as alleged. The detenue has not filed representation despite opportunity. The order is not bad despite the admitted position that the detention order has been executed only on 04 -06 -2001 after 68 days after its approval on 09 -04 -2001. The counsel further submits that the grounds have been furnished to the detenue and FIR is mentioned in the grounds only for reference purposes. Para 4 of the petition reads as under: - "...The competent court after calling the report from the concerned Police Station admitted the detenue to bail in case FIR No. 11/2001 U/s 7/25 I. A. Act. The said bail order was served upon the concerned jail authorities and the detenue was released accordingly. Copy of the bail order is enclosed herewith this petition as Annexure -A."

(3.) THIS factual position is not denied or refuted in the counter and the counsel (GA) concedes this position. Now contextiially when grounds are examined (Annexure -B) one finds that the 1st Paragraph introductory in nature speaks of detenue being a militant of Hizbul Mujahideen outfit. Second para speaks of his being motivated by one Mustafa Khan to weaponry training against the Govt.. of India. Para 3rd speaks of recovery of ammunition and one Hand Grenade from detenue on 06 -02 -2001 in respect of which FIR No. 11/2001 7/25 I. A. Act is registered at P/S Beerwah.