MOHAMMAD YOUSAF Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner through his brother, Mohd Aslam, for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of order No. 02 of 2022 dtd. 11/1/2022 issued by the respondent No. 2 by virtue of which the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under sec. 8 (1) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). It is stated that few days back, the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 2 had issued order dtd. 11/1/2022 (supra) passed by the respondent No. 2 under the Act and the respondents are bent upon to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the said order of detention. It is stated that the FIR No. 84/2008 for commission of offences under Sec. 376, 341 and 34 RPC of Police Station, Bahu Fort was closed as no case was made out against the petitioner. Further, for FIR No. 55/2010 for commission of offences under Sec. 353, 336 RPC of Police Station, Bahu Fort, the detention order could not have been passed after more than 10 years of the said FIR. Similarly, same is true for FIR No. 26/2013 for commission of offences under Sec. 379 and 447 RPC and FIR No. 40/2013 for commission of offences under Sec. 379, 447 and 506 RPC, both registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort in the year, 2013. Likewise, the FIR No. 300/2015 for commission of offences under Sec. 341, 447, 188 RPC registered with Police Station, Bahu Fort too could not have been relied upon by the respondent No. 2 for issuance of order of detention as the incident pertained to more than 06 years back. More so, on the same grounds, FIR No. 21/2018 for commission of offences under Sec. 427, 336, 354, 147, 148 and 109 RPC of Police Station, Bahu Fort could not have been formed the basis for issuance of order of detention as it too pertained to the year, 2018.

(2.) The petitioner has impugned the order of detention on the ground that the order is unreasonable, arbitrary and mala fide and the grounds are vague, extraneous and irrelevant. Further stale instances have been relied upon by respondent No. 2 for issuance of order of detention. It is also stated that no case for issuance of detention order on the ground of public order is made out as the expression "law and order" and "public order" are different in nature and cannot be used interchangeably.

(3.) The respondents have filed the objections in which it has been stated that the dossier was submitted by the respondent No. 3 recommending the detention of the petitioner as he is a desperate character and is habitual of indulging in acts of violence such as attempt to murder, assault, land grabbing etc and is also history sheeter in Bundle-A activities of serious and heinous in nature by using dangerous weapons over a period of time and has spread a reign of terror amongst the peace loving people of the area and his anti-social activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is also stated that number of FIRs have been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is indulging himself repeatedly in commission of heinous offences, as substantive laws have not proved as deterrent to the petitioner and hence the impugned order has been passed. It is also stated that the petitioner is an absconder and he has been intentionally avoiding the execution of detention order.