ISHFAQ AHMAD SOFI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to detention order bearing No. DMS/PSA/02/2014 dated 3rd July, 2014, Ishfaq Ahmad Sofi (hereinafter referred to as the detenue) has been detained and lodged in District Jail, Kupwara. Dissatisfied therewith, instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the same on various grounds. Respondents time and again were granted opportunities for filing the counter affidavit, which they have not, right to file stand closed, now the respondents have not even chosen to appear, perhaps realizing that the detenue is in custody for more than five months, as the period of detention has to be six months only except for its extension.

(2.) Basically, detenue in connection with case registered as FIR No. 88/2014 P/S Safakadal had been arrested for commission of offence punishable under Section 7/25 Arms Act. His activities as noticed in the grounds of deter on formulated by the District Magistrate, Srinagar suggest that his participation in militancy activities. He had come into contact with two foreign militants in the year 2005 who motivated him to join terrorist organization, initially he allegedly used to arrange SIM cards, food and shelter for the militants of Harkatul Mujahideen outfit and used to provide them information regarding movement of security forces in the neighboring town Sopore and other places which helped them to evade arrest. He was also engaged in transporting arms and ammunition from one place to another, was arrested in the year 2005 by SOG Sopore and detained under Public Safety Act. After release from the detention, he has not shun the path of violence and continued to remain in constant touch with the militants of said outfit. He has assumed high position in the network of said outfit and, as such, was trapped by SOG Srinagar on 31.5.2014. Three grenades were recovered from his possession. Finally, it has been noticed that the activities of the detenue are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of security of State and warrants immediate preventive measures to be taken against him. It is also mentioned that normal law has not been found sufficient to deter him from indulging in the acts of terrorism.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds of detention are without any basis. In case detenue would have been indulging in subversive activities from the year 2005, then at least a single case till the year 2013 would have been registered against him so as to find mention in the grounds of detention. The contention carries weight as the other-side despite repeated opportunities have not only failed to file the counter affidavit but have also failed to produce any record so as to justify the grounds of detention.