MOHD. SADIQ Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DODA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been moved by the father-in-law of the detenu, namely, Riaz Ahmad Rather S/o Abdul Ahad Rather R/o Mohalla Shinal Doda, praying for quash Ping of detention order No. 154-56/DM/Doda dated 28-5-1994. The detenu is a Peon in the Treasury Office Doda. It appears, that an FIR was registered against him with Police Station, Gandoh on 22-12-1993 bearing No. 61 of 1993 under the provisions of Terrorist and) Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, and he was taken into custody. While he was in custody, the detention order came to be passed against him by District Magistrate, Doda on 28-5-1994. The District Magistrate on the basis of material placed before him came to the conclusion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the security of the State, and therefore, he ordered his detention in terms of provisions of Public Safety Act, 1978. The contention of the petitioner is that the detenu has not committed any offence whatsoever, and he was not indulging in any activities which were prejudicial to the security of the State, which would warrant his detention under the provisions of Public Safety Act. The detention order has been challenged on various grounds, including the one that he was in custody when the detention order was passed and served on the detenu. The detaining authority has not taken into consideration the pendency of a criminal case against him while arriving at subjective satisfaction of ordering detention of the detenu. The grounds of detention also disclosed, as under:

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the detaining authority was aware that the detenu was in police custody for almost five months, but it was not disclosed as to what were the compelling reasons justifying the detention of the detenu under Public Safety Act. It appears, that the detaining authority was not even aware as to whether any bail application had been moved by the detenu or not The counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in case titled: Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1988 SC 934, in which it has been held that the grounds of detention should disclose:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a judgment of this Court delivered in HC petition No. 646 of 1994 in support of his case.