GHULAM AHMAD PARRAY Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenue - Ghulam Ahmad Parray, was earlier on detained by the respondent No.2 in terms of detention order bearing No. 53/DMB/PSA/2016 dated 25-11-2016. The said order was challenged before this Court by the medium of HC(P) 677/2016 and after allowing the writ petition on 10-03-2017, the order of detention was quashed by this Court and the respondents were directed to release the person of the detenue forthwith. Learned counsel has stated that when the said order was served on the respondents, the detenue was released from detention. However, he was re-arrested immediately in the jail premises itself and was confined in police station Hajin. Learned counsel submits that the detenue was not produced before any Court of law till such time that he was shifted to Kotebalwal Jail, Jammu, in terms of another order of detention, passed by the respondent No.2 - District Magistrate, Bandipora, bearing No. 13/DMB/PSA of 2017 dated 18-07-2017, impugned herein, in exercise of powers vested in him under clause (a) of section (8) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short Act of 1978). The detenue continues to be in Central Jail Kotebalwal, Jammu, at the moment. The order of detention was executed on 23rd of July, 2017. The grounds of detention, along with the allied documents, are said to have been served on the detenue and the contents thereof, as contended, are also alleged to have been read over and explained to him in the language which he understood fully well.

(2.) The order of detention has been challenged on the grounds, inter alia, that the detenue has been deprived of the right to file an effective representation before the Detaining Authority, i.e. the District Magistrate, Bandipora, against his order of detention. It is also argued that the detenue could not have been detained under the provisions of PSA when he was already booked in substantive offences under various F.I.Rs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents, in their reply affidavit, have stated that the detention warrant was executed on 23-07-2017 by one SI Ghulam Nabi No.1862/S 781577/EXK of police station, Hajin, who read over and explained the contents of the same to the detenue. Assuming the contention to be correct, the said ASI ought to have filed an affidavit to substantiate so, which has not been done in the case on hand. The petition, on this ground alone, deserves to be allowed and, as a consequence thereof, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the order of detention has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of J and K Public Safety Act. 1978 (JKPSA). The grounds of detention have been conveyed to the detenue in the language with which he is conversant and these have been read over and explained to him at the place of his detention, i.e. Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal. Therefore, the order of detention does not suffer from any vice. It has been passed with due diligence and it will sustain in the eyes of the law. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents are in tune and in line with the pleadings of the respondents.