UNION TERRITORY OF J&K Vs. AURANG ZAB KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal, (LPA) has been preferred by the appellant-Union Territory of J&K against the judgment dtd. 1/8/2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge in a Habeas Corpus petition [WP (Crl) No.201/2022], whereby the detention order No. 06-DMG-PSA-2021 dtd. 22/10/2021, passed by the District Magistrate, Ganderbal, by virtue of which respondent-Aurang Zab Khan, had been placed under preventive detention in exercise of powers under Sec. 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 and was ordered to be lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar, has been quashed and the detenue-respondent was directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith.

(2.) The appellant-respondent therein challenges the judgment dtd. 1/8/2022, on the grounds that the respondent-detenue was in contact with one Pakistani based local militant Lateef Khan @ Sajad of HM outfit. The respondent-detenue went to Pakistan Abbotabad on his valid documents in order to meet his sister Gul Begum wife of Lateef Khan @ Sajad, and after his return it was learnt that the detenue-respondent was giving information about the movement of army and other security agencies to the said terrorist (Lateef Ahmad Khan). The detenue-respondent is motivating/radicalizing the youth of his area to join the terrorist groups and is continuing to instigate/radicalize the youth of Ganderbal area as well. It has also been learnt that the detenue-respondent has started working as OGW for the terror outfit TRF and is emerging a threat to the security of the country, especially to the U.T of J&K. It had been averred that the detention order of the detenue-respondent has been passed by the Detaining Authority after taking into consideration the material forwarded by the Police concerned and after deriving subjective satisfaction that the preventive detention of the detenue-respondent has become imperative to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the country.

(3.) It is also urged that the detention order has been quashed by the learned Single Judge solely on the count that documents/material on which the detention order was passed, has not been supplied to the detenue-respondent at the time of execution of the detention warrant, while as, fact of the matter is that all the documents/material were supplied to the detenue-respondent.