TAWHEED AHMAD ZARGAR Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged the order of his detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/113/2021 dtd. 25/1/2022 issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby the petitioner has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The impugned order of detention has been passed on the basis of the activities elaborately narrated in the grounds of detention. As is indicated in the grounds of detention, the petitioner was booked in case FIR No. 65/2019 under Sec. 363, 376 and 109 RPC registered in Police Station Parimpora and was also arrested. It is submitted that after few months, the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the competent Court of law. The petitioner, after coming out on bail, did not shun his illegal activities and indulged in luring the youth of the locality to fall in drug addiction. For his activities the petitioner was again booked in FIR No. 154/2021 under Ss. 341, 307 and 506 IPC registered in Police Station Nigeen. On the basis of these two FIRs and the illegal activities of the petitioner reported by the Police, the District Magistrate, Srinagar, passed the impugned order of detention to prevent the petitioner from acting in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the activities of the petitioner indicated in the grounds of detention could only be a law and order problem and do not, in any manner, affect or disrupt the normal life of the community. It is submitted that in the two FIRs registered against the petitioner, the competent Court of law has already granted bail to the petitioner and it is not the case of the Respondents that after having been released on bail in the FIR No. 154/2021, the petitioner has indulged in any activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is also the contention of the petitioner that though the petitioner had been released in both the FIRs, yet the Detaining Authority has not shown its awareness with respect to the petitioner having been released on bail in FIR No. 154/2021. In short, the primary ground of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the activities attributed to the petitioner, which are also subject matter of investigation in two FIRs, may pose the law and order problem but the same cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.