ZAHOOR AHMAD DAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition has been thrown to a detention order No.07/DMB/PSA of 2022 dtd. 7/4/2022, passed by District Magistrate Bandipora-respondent No.2, vide which son of the petitioner namely Zahoor Ahmad Dar (the 'detenue') has been ordered to be detained and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbalwal, Jammu.

(2.) The petitioner has questioned the impugned detention order primarily on the ground that since detenue in all the FIRs mentioned in the impugned order has either been admitted to bail or acquitted, and the last alleged activity attributed to the detenue dates back to the year 2016, therefore, there is no proximity of detention of the detenue with the alleged apprehension of the respondents. According to the petitioner, the allegations attributed to the detenue in the grounds of detention are fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal actions.

(3.) Besides, the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order on the conventional grounds that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man could make effective representation against such allegations; that the very basis of satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority being vague, the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind; that the grounds of detention is a replica of the police dossier; that relevant material, including copy of dossier, FIRs, statements of witnesses, seizure memo, arrest memos, bail orders, detention papers of PSA, order dtd. 8/5/2017, were not furnished to the detenue, so as to enable him to make an effective representation due to which constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India are infringed; that neither translated script of the detention order in Kashmiri or Urdu language was furnished to the detenue nor grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language which he understands, so that he could make an effective representation; that detenue was neither provided an opportunity of making representation post-execution, nor he was informed of his right to make representation against the detention order and that representation filed by him was not accorded any consideration.