BASHIR AHMED HAJAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order 75 of 2002 dated 30.9.2002, subject Bashir Ahmed Hajam has been detained U/s 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order and the detention is under challenge in this petition. Though number of grounds have been taken to challenge the impugned order but Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has confined submissions to following three grounds:- First that the detaining authority has not communicated the basic facts to detenu thereby denied him right to make an effective representation to Govt. against his detention; Second that it has taken State and its police agency over a month to execute the detention order when the detenu was with the respondents under punitive detention in FIR No. 79 of 2002 U/s 7/25 I.A. Act registered at P/s Kerri Baramulla and third that despite the detenu/accused having been granted bail in FIR No. 79/02 of P/s Kerri Baramulla on 7.9.02, yet no mention thereof is made either in the grounds or in the detention order thereby rendering the detention bad for non-application of mind.

(2.) Ld. GA has canvassed that all the material documents were supplied to detenu who was also informed of his right to make representation and he is not prejudiced on that count. The order could not be executed for some time due to pre-occupation of security forces with other such like cases and requirement of the detenu in regular case. Counsel also submits that though the detenu has been given bail in the regular FIR No. 79/02 on 7.9.02 yet omission to mention the circumstances in the grounds would not vitiate the detention. Petition allegations and reply is gone through. Detention record produced by Ld. GA is perused.

(3.) Grounds C,D & E of para 3 of the writ petition read as under:- c.That the grounds of detention have not been communicated/red over or explained to the detenu in the language he understands by the detaining authority. It is also in place to submit that the detenu is an illiterate and uneducated boy. On this count also the detention in respect of the detenu deserved to quashed by this Hon'ble court.