MOHD AMIN Vs. UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 30/1/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court ['the Writ Court'] in WP(Crl) No. 29/2022 titled 'Mohd Amin vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others, whereby the Writ Court has declined to set aside the order of detention of the petitioner issued by the District Magistrate, Doda vide his No. 30/DM/DODA/PSA/2022 dtd. 28/6/2022.

(2.) Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, it is necessary to notice few relevant facts. On the basis of some material such as dossier and other connected documents, like copies of FIRs registered against the appellant, the District Magistrate, Doda vide his communication dtd. 28/6/2022 ordered detention of the appellant under Public Safety Act, 1978 ['the Act'] with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Immediately on passing of the order of detention, the grounds of detention were served upon the appellant.

(3.) From a reading of the grounds of detention, it transpires that the activities, which the Detaining Authority found prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, are such, in respect of which, the Police Station Doda has already registered as many as 07 FIRs; one in the year 2012, one in the year 2014, two in the year 2016, one each in the years 2017, 2018 and 2021. All the FIRs have been registered for commission of offences under Ss. 188 RPC read with Sec. 03 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act. All the FIRs have been shown to have been investigated and concluded into presentation of challans before the competent Court of law. On the basis of allegations in the FIRs aforesaid, the Detaining Authority has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been indulging in vandalism and wanton activities which can have serious consequences and potential of hurting the sentiments of a particular community. The appellant has been founded to be instrumental in creating law and order problem for the Administration. Be that as it is, the Detaining Authority recorded its satisfaction that, with a view to prevent the appellant from indulging in activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order, it was necessary and in public interest to place the appellant under preventive detention.