JAVAID AHMAD NAJAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this petition is an order of detention bearing No.DMS/PSA/26/2021 dtd. 24/6/2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar ["the Detaining Authority"], whereby the petitioner has been put under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

(2.) As per the grounds of detention, claimed to have been served by the respondents upon the petitioner, the Detaining Authority received a dossier of the activities of the from Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar vide his No.LGL/Det-3216/20/3041-44 dtd. 5/3/2021 with a request to issue a warrant for detention of the petitioner under the provision of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 ["the Act"]. As per the dossier provided by the Senior Superintendent of Police, the petitioner is shown to have been involved in as many as eight FIRs registered in the year 1996, 1999, 2006, 2007 and 2019 respectively. Five of the referred FIRs have been challaned in the competent Court of law whereas three FIRs are shown to be under investigation. It is alleged that the petitioner after having been booked and arrested in several FIRs did not mend his ways and after release was found continuously hatching criminal conspiracy aimed at threatening the security of the State. It is claimed in the grounds of detention that the ideology which the petitioner follows and preaches is for waging war against the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and the Central Government with a view to achieve goal of seceding the territory of Jammu and Kashmir from Union of India. It is on the basis of cumulative effect of the activities of the petitioner, the Detaining Authority seems to have arrived at subjective satisfaction that remaining of the petitioner at large would be highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is on the basis of these grounds, the Detaining Authority has put the petitioner under preventive detention by invoking the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Act.

(3.) The respondents despite having been given several opportunities have failed to file reply affidavit and, therefore, the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner for quashing the detention order were examined in the light of detention record produced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.