PREM SINGH Vs. UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') has challenged order No.01-PSA of 2022 dtd. 12/5/2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Reasi ('Detaining Authority') whereby he has been subjected to preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) It is contended in the petition that the impugned order of detention has been passed on the bases of false and frivolous FIRs lodged against him. It is further contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed without application of mind and that the grounds of detention are merely a reproduction of the police dossier. It is further contended that the petitioner has been released on bail in all the cases, but this fact does not find mention in the impugned order of detention which shows non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. It is also contended that the constitutional and statutory safeguards have been observed in breach by the Respondents in the instant case and the detenu has not been furnished whole of the material on which reliance has been placed by the Detaining Authority. It is also contended that the grounds of detention are vague on the basis of which it was impossible for the petitioner to make an effective representation.

(3.) The Respondents have resisted the petition by filing a counter affidavit thereto. In their counter affidavit, the Respondents have submitted that the detenu is a habitual offender against whom a large number of cases have been registered and his activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of peace and public order. It is further submitted that the detenu is repeatedly involved in the activities which are prejudicial to the security of public order and he has a network of criminals to carry out nefarious activities. It has been further contended that all the constitutional and statutory safeguards have been adhered to by the Respondents while passing the impugned order of detention and that the detenu has been furnished whole of the material relied upon by the Detaining Authority. It is also contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed by the Detaining Authority after drawing subjective satisfaction on the basis of the material brought before it. To support their contentions, the Respondents have produced the detention record.