REYAZ AHMAD DAR Vs. U.T. OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magistrate, Budgam detained the detenue-Reyaz Ahmad Dar under Sec. 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 vide his office order No. DMB/PSA/11 of 2021 dtd. 7/12/2021, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. This order of detention has been challenged by the detenue through his father-Ghulam Rasool Dar.

(2.) The order of detention has been assailed by the detenue on the grounds that; (i) the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against the same; (ii) the detenue was already acquitted of the charges in FIR No. 167 of 2004 and FIR No. 216 of 2013 after facing trial but this important fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention which shows total non-application of mind; (iii) the detenue was placed under detention earlier vide order dtd. 19/3/2017 and 24/1/2019 and when these detention orders were quashed in the habeas corpus petitions (HCP No. 166/2017 and HCP No. 62/2019) filed by the detenue which were decided on 5/9/2017 and 4/7/2019. Thereafter, no such fresh activity has been alleged to the detenue to pass the order of detention, as such, this order of detention is bad and is required to be quashed; (iv) the detenue was already in custody in FIR No. 135 of 2018 registered in Police Station, Chadoora and this important fact has not been reflected in the grounds of detention and neither any compelling reasons have been spelled out in the grounds of detention to pass the order of detention once the detenue was already in custody; (v) the last alleged activity attributed to the detenue as per the grounds of detention was in the year 2018 and thereafter no fresh activity has been attributed to the detenue; (vi) the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention itself and, as such, this has resulted in vitiating the order of detention; (vii) the detenue has not been furnished the relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention and neither any opportunity of making representation has been given, as such, this has resulted in detenue not been able to make an effective representation and also has resulted in infraction of the rights as guaranteed to the detenue under law, thus, the detention is bad and is required to be set aside.

(3.) Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, learned A.A.G has filed counter affidavit as well as produced the record.