MOHAMMAD JALAL SHEIKH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of powers under Sec. 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short "the Act"), District Magistrate Srinagar has passed the detention Order No. DMS/PSA/143/2021 dtd. 28/2/2022 (for short "impugned order"), in terms whereof the detenue-Mohammad Jalal Sheikh was ordered to be detained under the Act.

(2.) The detention of the detenue has been challenged INTER ALIA on the grounds that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable. It is the contention of the detenue that he was already on bail in FIR No.19/2022 and the detaining authority despite having knowledge about the bail has not spelled out the compelling reasons to pass the detention order after delay more particularly given the fact that the detenue was at large and no illegal activity was attributed to him, as such, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining authority, and deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, it is contended that the relevant material has not been furnished to the detenue and whatever material was furnished to him, it was not possible to make a purposeful representation, thus, the right of the detenue under Article 22 of the Constitution stands violated. His further contention is that he has filed representation, post-detention, but the same has not been considered till date. It is submitted that because of non-consideration of his representation, the detention order slapped upon him is liable to be quashed. Copy of the representation is annexed with the writ petition.

(3.) Respondents have filed their reply affidavit, wherein it is stated that the order of detention was passed by the detaining authority after being satisfied on the basis of the material available including the dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar that it was necessary with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State to place the detenue under preventive detention. It is submitted that the detention of the detenue has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the procedural safeguards prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been followed in the instant case. It is further submitted that the grounds of detention transpire the activities of the detenue which, on the face of it, are highly prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, there was no option left to the detaining authority but to order detention of the detenue under the Act.