JUNAID ZAHOOR BANGROO Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this petition, Order no. DMS/PSA/24/2024 dtd. 5/9/2024 (impugned detention order) passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar - respondent no. 2, (for short "detailing authority") whereby detenu, namely, Junaid Zahoor Bangroo, S/o Zahoor Ahmad Bangroo R/o Malik Angan Fatch Kadal, Srinagar has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, is sought to be quashed and the detenu set at liberty on the grounds made mention of therein.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner in the petition is that the detenu was arrested in the first week of August 2024 by the Police Station Safa Kadal and while being in illegal custody was shifted to Central Jail, Srinagar, to be detained in terms of the impugned detention order. The allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent as the detaining authority has mentioned various allegations but no specific allegations has been shown against the detenu, not even an iota of connection is given in the grounds of detention connecting the detenu with the allegations. It is also stated that the detention order has been passed primarily in view of ensuing parliamentary elections, however said object is alien to the object as laid in Sec. 8 of PSA; inasmuch as the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the facts of the case but has acted to the report submitted by Sr. Superintendent of Police, Srinagar as the grounds of detention do not indicate any criminal case being registered against the detenu at any point of time till his lodgement except proceedings allegedly initiated under Sec. 107/151 Cr. P.C and 126/170 BNS for which he has been bound down for keeping peace and tranquillity; inasmuch as the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention itself which is a pre requisite for it before passing any detention order and detaining authority has relied only on the police dossier and seems to have worked on the dictates of police authorities, as such, the grounds seems to be replica of the police dossier; inasmuch as the representation submitted by the detenu has not been considered nor relevant material as requested has been furnished to the detenu when the detaining authority is constitutionally duty bound to furnish the same. However, in the instant case, whatever material has been furnished to the detenu, same is vague, imaginary, non -existent and without basis.

(3.) It is also contended by petitioner that detaining authority has mentioned in grounds of detention involvement of detenu in the proceedings allegedly initiated under Sec. 107/151 Cr. PC and 126/170 BNS but has not furnished the material, relied upon by it to detenu to enable him to make an effective representation by giving his version of facts attributed to him and make an attempt to dispel the apprehensions nurtured by detaining authority concerning involvement of detenu in alleged activities. It is further contended that the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case and unequivocally reflects and shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority.