FEHMEEDA SOFI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of the powers vested in him under clause (a) of section (8) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short JKPSA), the respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Srinagar, passed an order of detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/02/2017 dated 09th of May, 2017, having the effect of detaining the detenue (Fahmeeda Sofi) and lodging her at District Jail, Baramulla. However, this lodgement was subsequently changed to the Central Jail, Kotbalwal, Jammu, and thereafter to District Jail, Amphalla, Jammu. The petitioner has assailed this order before this Court, on the grounds, inter alia, that the material referred to in the grounds of detention, to enable the detenue to make a representation, has not been provided to her, which is mandatory in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The grounds of detention are vague, uncertain, indefinite, untrue and unreal. These lack in material particulars, viz. place, time, day, month, year etc. and as such the detention order is liable to be set aside. The earlier order of detention dated 18-10-2016, having been quashed by the Court on 22-12-2016, no fresh order of detention could be passed against the detenue, unless there were fresh grounds, which came into existence after the passing of the order dated 22-12-2016 and her release from the detention. The grounds of detention are a replica of the police dossier and only the word "subject" has been changed into the word "you" by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, which smacks of non application of mind. The grounds of detention do not show that the detenue was arrested on 26-04-2017 and was booked by the police station, Soura, Srinagar, in a case registered against her under section 107/151 Cr.PC, in which the Executive Magistrate, 1st Class, Ida, Srinagar, granted her bail on 09-05-2017. The order of detention has been passed without application of mind, rendering the same liable to be set aside. It has further been stated that since the detenue was in custody at the time of passing of the order of detention, therefore, there was no justification to detain her under the preventive detention. Her bail application could have been opposed or the order could have been challenged before the superior Court and in no case could she be detained under the JKPSA.

(2.) The respondent No.2 has resisted and controverted the petition of the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that the order of detention has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the JKPSA. The grounds of detention have been conveyed to the detenue in the language with which she is conversant. These have been read over and explained to her. The material, that formed the base line of the detention of the detenue, has also been provided to her and she has also been told that she has a right to make a representation to the Government as also to the authority that passed the order of detention. It has been passed with due diligence. It will survive in the eyes of law. It is neither perverse nor bad and, therefore, the petition of the petitioner merits dismissal.

(3.) Heard and considered.