ROYAL SINGH Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 16/12/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(Crl) No.07/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge while maintaining the detention order, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner.

(2.) The case as set up by the appellant-detenu before the Writ Court was that when the detention order bearing No.03-PSA of 2022 dtd. 12/3/2022 came to be passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu, the appellant-detenu was already in police custody in FIR No.208/2018 registered with Police Station Trikuta Nagar (Bahu Fort), Jammu. Further, the appellant-detenu was not supplied with the grounds of detention, copies of FIRs, statements of witnesses or seizure memos, challan or any other material regarding the registration of criminal cases against him, in the absence of which the appellant-detenu could not make effective representation to the writ respondents, as such the detention order is in contravention to Sec. 13 of the Public Safety Act. The further case of appellant-detenu was that the detention order came to be passed without application of mind, without appreciating the true material facts and without recording grounds of satisfaction; thus, the liberty of appellant-detenu has illegally and unconstitutionally been curtailed; moreso no time period for detention has been specified in the order of detention. Thus, the specific case of appellant-detenu is that the provisions of Public Safety Act and the constitutional safeguards were not followed by the writ respondents while issuing the order of detention.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for writ respondents argued that when the ordinary law did not prove adequate enough to deter the appellant-detenu from indulging in repeated acts of criminal nature, the law enforcing agencies had left with no other option but to request for invoking the provisions of the Public Safety Act so that the appellant-detenu is prevented from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the peace and public order. Further, the appellant-detenu was provided with all material well within time, but despite that he did not avail the alternate remedy of filing representation.