MOHD SHARIEF SARTAJ Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to be belonging to a family dedicated to the cause of secularism and being related to G. R. AZAD an eminent educationist and a former Director of Education as also of G. N. Azad Minister of State, Government of India, the petitioner seek the quashing of the order by which he has been directed to be detained under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The petitioner has alleged that he was not supplied with the grounds of detention in the language he understood and that the grounds in english supplied to him were not accompanied with the requisite documents. He has further alleged that his detention is malafide and motivated.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averment made in the petition it the alleged that the petitioner was arrested on the night intervening of 19th, 20th Sept. 1a85 and lodged in the interrogation centre, Jammu where he is alleged to have been subjection to barbarous torture and made to sign blank papers. The petitioner was directed to be transferred from the interrogation centre to the Central Jail, Jammu by the orders of this Court. The petitioner further submits that the investigating agency falsely implicated him under the Preention of Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act, 1985. He filed an application for the grant of bail in the Designated court constituted under the Act and while the application was pending disposal and got adjourned by the investigating agency, the order of detention under the public Safety Act was served upon him to fore -stall the granting of bail which according to the petitioner was almost a foregone conclusion. His preventive detention has been ordered malifidely because the investigating agency having miserably failed to collect any evidence against the so -called false charge, the respondents are alleged to have come with the order impugned and detained him in the preventive custody. He was served with the grounds of detention in English language which he alleges to be not knowing. It is further submitted that the grounds of detention and listless and monotonous catalogue of wild, false and malicious allegations. According to him not even a single piece of evidence or any other material to furnish any support for the wild allegations was annexed to the grounds not provided to him at any time after the service of the said grounds of detention. All the grounds have been denied by the petitioner and alleged to be mischievous. The petitioner submits that he is an ordant supporter of congress ideology which he advocated with force and determination through his newspaper "The Reh -E -Marzal, Jammu". His detention as alleged by him, is the result of some alleged deep conspiracy to malign his family.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit by Shri N. R. Gupta the District Magistrate, it has been submitted that the petitioner was detained vide order No. 23/86 under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act because the detaining authority was satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The petitioner was arrested by K. S. Sambyal Inspector Police, C. I. D (Cl) Jammu on 19.3.1986 in compliance to the directions of the Superintendent of Police and in execution of the warrant issued by District Magistrate Jammu. The detaining authority was aware of the fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody in FIR No. 4 of 1984 P/S Gandhinagar Jammu under Sec. 3 Terrorists & Disruptive Activities Prevention Act 1985, Sec. 3 E.A. Ordinance, 3/25 Indian Arms Act at the time of the passing of the order of detention. The detaining authority considered that in the event of his release on bail the petitioner was bound to indulge in terrorist activities at the beheast of terrorists which would endanger the security of the State. The grounds of detention were duly served upon the petitioner within the statutory period of limitation provided under the J&K P. S. Act. The grounds were supplied to the petitioner in the languages he understood. The petitioner has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the state and his remaining at large was considered highly prejudicial to the security of the State. The petitioner has been rightly detained. His detention is legal, valid, and according to law. The grounds of detention order has not been made because of any malafide, abuse of power, fraud on statute, vengeance or exercise of powers for colourable purposes.