MOHD. AYAZ Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner through his father seeking quashing of the order of detention bearing No. 06 of 2023 dtd. 10/5/2023 issued by respondent No. 2 under Sec. 8(1)(a) of the Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') on the following grounds:

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2, stating therein that the order of detention has been issued on the basis of activities of the petitioner, which were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, so as to prevent the petitioner from indulging again in such activities. It is further stated that all the statutory safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as provisions contained in the Act were meticulously followed, while issuing as well as executing the order of detention. It is further averred that the petitioner is a history-sheeter of Police Station, Peer Mitha, Jammu and a dreaded criminal, desperate character, who habitually indulges in acts of violence such as attempt to murder, assault, carrying illegal arm/ammunition, extortion etc. It is further stated that the petitioner was found to be involved in 12 different cases and the ordinary criminal law when failed to mend him and his tendency to disturb the public order, the Detaining Authority was compelled to detain him under the Act. The acquittal, discharge or bail in one or more of the cases, has no effect on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority.

(3.) Mr. S. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress that the judgments of acquittal recorded in favour of the petitioner in FIR No. 63/2017 of Police Station, Nowabad and case FIR No. 38/2022 of Police Station, Peer Mitha, were not brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority by the respondent No. 3 and as such, it prevented the Detaining Authority from deriving the subjective satisfaction while issuing the order of detention. He further argued that despite the fact that the representation was made to the respondents, the same was not decided by them resulting into violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as well as provisions contained in the Act.