ADIL FAROOQ MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detention order bearing No. 05/DMA/PSA/DET/2021 dtd. 25/2/2021, issued by respondent No. 2, has been impugned by the petitioner-detenue, through his father, inter alia on the grounds :

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the safeguards guaranteed to the petitioner-detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and sec. 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), have been fully complied with and the detenue was furnished with sufficient particulars so as to enable him to make an effective representation. The case of the detenue was examined by the Advisory Board constituted under sec. 15 of the Act and it was only after the opinion of the said Board that the order of detention was confirmed by the Government. It is further stated that the detenue was detained in pursuance of the detention order(supra) as he had remained in touch with two militants, namely Haider R/O Dialgam and Basharat @ Mawiya R/O Dehruna. The detenue was working as an overground worker and was keeping vigil on Security Forces besides passing information to the aforesaid militants. The detenue was apprehended on a naka at Akura, Mattan on 6/9/2020 and in this regard FIR No. 99/2020 under sec. 7/25 Arms Act and 3/4 Explosive Substance Act at Police Station, Mattan, stands registered against him. It has been stated that FIR No. 159/2019 under Sec. 307 and 427 RPC, 3/4 Explosive Substance Act has been registered against the detenue in Police Station, Anantnag. Accordingly, the Police prepared a dossier and while finding that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the security of the State, the detention order was passed and the same was executed on 28/2/2021 through Sub Inspector, Mohammad Ashraf of Police Station, Anantnag, who handed over the detenue to the Assistant Superintendent, District Jail, Kathua, against proper receipt. Further the detenue was informed about his detention and the grounds of detention vide communication dtd. 25/2/2021. He was also informed about his right to make representation against the said order both before the Government as well as before the detaining authority. The Government has approved the order of detention vide communication dtd. 23/3/2021.

(3.) Mr. Shafaqat Nazir, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterated the submissions made in the petition and vehemently argued that the detenue was already in custody at the time of passing of impugned order of detention but the order is absolutely silent with regard to that aspect of the matter and as such, the impugned order is bad in law.