AB RASHID MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DETENUE Abdul Rashid Mir S/O Mohd Ramzan Mir R/O Puthshahi Lolab, Distt. Kupwara, has through his father Mohd Ramzan Mir, sought indulgence of his detention order No. DMK/PSA/36 of 2000 dated: 19 -01 -2001, inter -alia maintaining in the petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of J&K State, that he was arrested by security forces in the month of July, 2000 and was booked in case FIR No. 230/2000 for offences U/s 120 -B, 121, 122, 212 RPC and 7/25 Arms Act registered by Police Station Kupwara; that during his arrest in the said FIR the impugned order came to be issued wherein the detaining authority has not assigned any compelling reasons for detaining the detenue under Public Safety Act; that the detenue is 3rd primary pass and is not able to read and writ english language when the grounds of detention supplied to him are in English language, as such were never understandable and intelligible to him; that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been resorted to by the detaining authority at the time of passing the impugned order of detention in as much as he was not informed that he can file a representation against his detention: that the order of detention is passed on non -existent and irrelevant material and the same is coached in ambiguous language and is based on mere surmises; that the petitioner has not so far approached before any court of law for release on bail for the offences allegedly committed by him as communicated in the FIR.

(2.) ON admission of this petition, notice came to be issued to the respondents for filing their counter affidavit pursuant whereof respondent No. 2 came to file the counter affidavit wherein he has controverted all the averments of the petition, but at the same time he stated that the impugned order of detention came to be issued on 19 -01 -2001 when the detenue came to be taken into preventive detention on 19 -01 -2001; that the grounds of detention came lo be served upon the detenue.

(3.) HEARD learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.