BILAL AHMAD BHAT Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the detention order No.56/DMP/PSA/22dated 25/6/2022, issued by District Magistrate, Pulwama (for brevity 'detaining authority') has been challenged. In terms of the aforesaid order, Bilal Ahmad Bhat son of Mohammad Ramzan Bhat resident of Bhat Mohalla Wuyan Khrew Tehsil Pampore District Pulwama (for short 'detenue') has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Jammu (Kotbhalwal), so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

(2.) The petitioner has contended that the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material which formed basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner.

(3.) Upon being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein they have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him;that the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit; that the detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as to the detaining authority against his detention. It is further contented in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority and that the detention order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.