ZAHID AHMAD NAJAR Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order of detention bearing No.16/DMA/PSA/DET/2022 dtd. 10/4/2022 (for short "the impugned order"), the petitioner has assailed the same, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(2.) The counter affidavit stands filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is an Over Ground Worker of banned terrorist organization Kashmir Freedom Fighters, an offshoot of LeT and is trying to strengthen the influence of outfit by giving every kind of support to active militant outfit and is indulging in antinational activities. It has been further stated that the petitioner has voluntarily developed contacts with the various terrorist/secessionist organizations to carry out the activities of secessionism and terrorism and supported the militants by providing shelter and transportation besides insisting youth to support and join militant outfits. The petitioner along with his five associates was arrested by Police Station, Bijbehara, on 8/2/2022 at Padshahi Bagh, Bijbehara following recovery of 30 posters of banned outfit Kashmir Freedom Fighters, an offshoot of LeT, and after examining the dossier and other material, the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner's activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and, as such, his preventive detention was ordered in terms of impugned order. It has been submitted that the grounds taken by the petitioner are legally misconceived and factually untenable and without any merit. The material relied upon by the detaining authority has been furnished to the petitioner and he was also informed of his right to make a representation against his detention. It has been further averred that the detention of the petitioner has been ordered strictly in accordance with the provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act and all the procedural safeguards and the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Constitutions have been adhered to.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that in respect of offences under ULA(P) Act, bail applications are rarely allowed and the petitioner had not been granted bail, as such, the finding recorded by the detaining authority that there is likelihood of grant of bail to the petitioner is legally untenable.