IMTIAZ AHMED Vs. UT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner namely Imtiaz Ahmed S/O Ali Mohd., R/O Village Karyote, Tehsil Thanamandi, District Rajouri (for short the detenue") through his wife, has challenged the detention Order No. DMR/INDEX/12 of 2024 dtd. 15/11/2024 (impugned order), issued by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as "the detaining authority"), whereby he has been placed under preventive detention, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order".

(2.) Detenue has raised many grounds to assail the impugned order. It is his contention that Detaining Authority though referred earlier cases from the years 2013 and 2017, as found in the Grounds of Detention, what was placed before him was only the copies of reports in those matters. Had the Authorities placed the outcome of such matters/orders vis-a-vis enlarged on bail in case FIR No.174/2013 and FIR No. 96/2017, there would have been a different conclusion than the one which is challenged in the present petition; that the sponsoring agency has suppressed a vital fact that earlier also, the petitioner was detained under preventive detention, and now same FIRs are made the basis for detaining the detenue despite the fact that this court had quashed the earlier detention order. It is also contended that the detenue was not informed about his right to make representation to the detaining authority as well as government as early as possible, which prevented him from making effective and meaningful representation; that the impugned detention order has been passed mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as, there is no live or proximate link between the alleged activities and the detention order; that the detenue was not explained the contents of detention order and grounds of detention in the language he understands, which also prevented him from making meaningful representation to the detaining authority as well as government; that that the FIRs relied upon pertaining to the years 2013 and 2017 could not have been relied upon in view of the fact that the cases registered in the year 2013 and 2017 being stale, for lack of live and proximate link, between the alleged activities and the preventive detention order, could not have been considered to pass the impugned order in the year 2024. Also complaints were claimed to have been made against the detenue, yet no record pertaining to said action has been provided to the detenue, infringing the fundamental right of the detenue with regard to non-supply of record, therefore, documents on the basis of which detention order was passed have not been provided to the detenue, rendering him unable to make effective representation. Lastly, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned detention order be set aside.

(3.) The respondents, in their counter, has controverted the averments made in the petition, submitting that the detenue is a history-sheeter and habitual offender engaged in serious criminal activities including narcotic offences, theft of communication cable from a military establishment and offences against public tranquility. The detenue was found to be supporting terrorist organizations in the capacity of an Over Ground Worker (OGW), by providing logistical assistance such as shelter and, potentially, financial support, as to create an environment of insecurity and terror, severely endangering public peace, tranquility, and communal harmony and therefore it was imperative to prevent him from continuing his criminal/anti social activities and to maintain public peace and order under the preventive detention; that the detention warrant along with grounds of detention was properly executed through PSI Fazal Raja Dev of P/S Thanamandi under proper acknowledgement of the detenue and he was fully made to understand in the language he understands; Lastly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed and the impugned detention order be upheld as the same has strictly been passed as per the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. The respondents have produced the detention records, in order to lend support to the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.