AB HAMID BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detenue Abdul Hamid Bhat was arrested on 5the of May, 2001 in connection with FIR No.38/2001 for commission of the offences u/sec. 3/25 Indian Arms Act on the allegations that he was active member of militant organisation operation Balakot of JHM; he has obtained training in handling sophisticated weapons in POK and on being apprehended one chinese pistol was recovered from his possession.

(2.) THE detaining authority considered detenues activities detrimental to the interest and security of state so passed detention order No. 16 DMP/ 2001 dated 21.6.2001 under section 8 of Public Safety Act. The detention order was confirmed on 29.6.2001 and on 4.7.2001 the detenue was detained in preventive custody. On the same date grounds of detention in English were supplied to him after being explained to him in Urdu and Kashmiri as per the stand of the respondents.

(3.) THROUGH this H.C. petition the detention order has been challenged on various grounds but in the course of arguments ld.Counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service only the grounds; one, he had not applied for bail so there was no prospect of engaging in prejudicial activities but without considering this aspect the detention order was passed; two, that the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenue in the language which he understands. Let us proceed to consider the grounds of attack urged by the ld.Counsel for the petitioner in AIR 1990, Supreme Court which has been held: - "An order for detention can be validly passed against a person custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenue is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenue is already in detention. The expression "compelling reasons" in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenue is likely to be released from custody in the near future, and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenue, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities."