SAKIB AHMAD SHEROO Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this petition is the detention order bearing No.26/DMA/PSA/DET/2021 dtd. 30/6/2021, passed by District Magistrate, Anantnag (respondent No.2) whereby the petitioner has been taken into preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The said order has been passed by respondent No.2 in exercise of his powers under Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the grounds that at the time when the impugned order of detention was passed, he was already in custody in connection with FIR No.98/2020 for offences under Sec. 18, 20 and 38 of ULA(P) Act of Police Station, Dooru, and, as such, there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the detention order. It is further contended that the material forming basis of the grounds of detention in the form of copy of FIR, copy of dossier, copies of statements of witnesses recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C have not been supplied to the detenue thereby curtailing his right to make an effective representation against impugned order of detention.

(3.) The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing a counter affidavit thereto. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that all the safeguards have been adhered to and complied with by the detaining authority and that the order has been issued validly and legally. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. It is contended that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. That the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. That the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit. It is further averred that the impugned detention order has been passed after following the due procedure of law. In order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents has also produced the detention record.