AMMANULLAH KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject Ammanullah Khan is detained by District Magistrate, Srinagar under his order No. DMS/PSA/210 dated 31-3-2000 under Section 8 of JAMMU AND KASHMIR Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. This order subsequently approved by the Govt. is under challange in this petition. Though number of grounds are urged in support of the contention that the order and the consequent detention in question is vitiated but the counsel restricts his submissions to and presses only following grounds to question the detention :-

(2.) In answer Ld. GA submits that the detenu has been handed over both detention order as well as grounds. He has been made to understand same in Urdu/Kashmiri language. After understanding the same he has executed receipt and given acknowledgment therefor. There were compelling reasons to detain the subject under preventive detention, notwithstanding being held up in FIR No. 14/2000 U/s 7/25 IAA registered at P/S Kangan Ganderbal. Merely because he had not moved bail application in this regular criminal case, it cannot be said that the detention in question is vitiated. However, the Ld. GA submits that as to contention that the grounds are vague, and indefinite, grounds (Annexure P-1) speak for themselves. The subject has been detained for the reasons as given in the grounds with a view to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The detention file as also the main record of the case reveals that subject Amanullah Khan after being taken in preventive custody pursuant to the warrant in question dated 10-4-2000 was handed over to Kotbalwal Jail, Jammu the place of his lodgement on 10-4-2000 itself. The endorsement on the back of copy of order of detention and the receipt dated 10-4-2000 on record show that the subject has received the grounds of detention as also the order of detention. The contents thereof have been explained to him in the language which he fully understood. He has been also informed of his right to make a representation to the Govt. against detention. In such circumstances contention that detenu is prejudiced on this count appears not well founded. In like circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in LPA (HC 57/2001) in Rustum Wani v. State of J.andK. on 20-8-2001 held :-

(3.) Admittedly subject Amanulla Khan was in punitive custody in FIR No. 15/2000 u/S. I.A. Act registered at P.S Kangan Ganderbal when he was taken in preventive custody pursuant to the order of detention in question of District Magistrate, Sri-nagar on 10-4-2000. Merely because no bail application has been moved on behalf of the detenu would not ipso-facto lead to the conclusion that there was no compelling reason to detain him under the provisions of P.S. Act. In fact, the detaining authority has specifically mentioned in the order of detention that the subject may get bail from Court and in that eventuality his remaining at large is a threat to the security of the State. In the background of activities attributable to the detenu, it is for compelling circumstances that it has become imperative of the State to detain him under Public Safety Act.