RIYAZ AHMAD MIR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Detention Order No. DIVCOM-"K"/170/2021 dtd. 25/9/2021, (for short "detention order) issued by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir " respondent no.2 (for brevity "detaining authority"), placing Riyaz Ahmad Mir son of Abdul Rehman Mir, resident of Khellan Litter, District Pulwama (for short hereinafter called as "detenu) under preventive detention, with a view to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, has been challenged by the detenue in this petition.

(2.) It is stated that the detenue was arrested without any reason and justification in the year 2019 and was falsely implicated in FIR No. 64/2019 in which he was admitted to interim bail vide order dtd. 26/3/2020, which was subsequently bail was made absolute. Thereafter the detenue was summoned to Police Station Litter in the month of September, 2021, detained illegally and shifted to Central Jail Jammu, under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in terms of the impugned order.

(3.) The impugned order is assailed inter-alia on the grounds that the detention order is vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegation and passing of detention order on such ground is unjustified and unreasonable; that the detaining authority has mentioned two FIRs, i.e, 62 and 64 of the year 2019 of Police Station Litter, Pulwama in the grounds of detention and the activities alleged therein are bad in law and the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed; that the detenue was already granted bail in case FIR No. 64/2019 at the time detention order was passed and the detaining authority despite having knowledge about the detenue having already been admitted to bail has not mentioned this important fact in the grounds of detention which shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. The detention was recommended on 11/8/2021 but order was passed on 25/9/2021, i.e, after a delay of more than a month. It is stated that the detenue has been admitted to bail in the FIRs mentioned in the grounds of detention and he was at large, however, this important fact has not been reflected in the grounds of detention. It is further urged that the delay is unreasonable, illegal and as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed on this ground also.