DILBAG SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Detenu-Dilbag Singh S/o Janak Singh R/o Ward No. 4, Simbal Camp at present Makhanpur Gujran Miran Sahib Tehsil R.S.Pura District Jammu, seeks quashment of detention order No. 09/PSA of 2016 dated 15th July 2016, passed by District Magistrate, Jammu (for brevity "Detaining Authority"), directing preventive detention of detenu, as well as extension orders bearing Government Order No. Home/PB/V/1579 of 2016 dated 14th October 2016 and No. Home/PB/V/179 of 2017 dated 14th January 2017.

(2.) The case set up by petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in some cases, only to harass and humiliate him. Without appreciation of fact that petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not become threat to public order and not been convicted so far by any court of law, submitted a false and frivolous dossier to learned District Magistrate, Jammu-respondent No. 3, contending therein that petitioner would manage his bail from the court and again indulge in some criminal activities and recommended placing petitioner under preventive detention. The detaining authority vide impugned detention order placed petitioner under preventive detention and notice of detention order was asked to be given to petitioner by reading and explaining him the language, which he understands. The detention order and recommendation under Public Safety Act made by Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, alongwith dossier, various FIRs and police challan attached with the recommendation were neither directed to be read over and explained to petitioner nor were same read over and explained to petitioner in the language which he understands. Aggrieved by detention order, petitioner states to have made a representation to respondent No. 2, for revocation of detention order. Petition, being HCP No. 39/2016, is stated to have been filed throwing challenge to detention order No. 09/PSA of 2016 dated 15th July 2016. The petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide representation in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. However, respondent No. 2 without deciding representation, has passed impugned extension orders, extending preventive detention of petitioner without deciding his representation.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents. They aver that petitioner had earlier filed HCP No. 39/2016, which was disposed of with a direction to consider and decide the representation in accordance with law and that in response to letter dated 18th October 2016, Inspector General of Police, CID, has communicated that petitioner is involved in numerous activities of serious/heinous nature, which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order and advised that petitioner may not be released. The case is said to have been further examined in light of response of Inspector General of Police, CID, and it has been decided that the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant release of detenu at this stage and that petitioner's representation was considered and found devoid of merit and rejected vide Government order No. Home/PB-V/401 of 2017 dated 6th February 2017. Further submission of respondents is that petitioner is notorious/hard-core habitual criminal and desperate character and he has no respect for the law of land and large number of criminal cases has been registered against him.