SAHIL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the detention order No. 08/PSA of 2017 dated 26.11.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Samba, herein respondent No. 2, under section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short, the Act) directing preventive detention of the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The record produced on behalf of the respondents reveals that the impugned detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Samba, herein respondent No. 2, on the basis of the dossier furnished by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba, herein respondent No. 3. It was executed on 28.11.2016 by Parshotam Kumar, ASI, Police Station, Vijaypur. Intimation in terms of section 13(1) of the Act was sent to the detenue by the detaining authority vide No. DMS/PSA/JC/16-17/237/1045-48 dated 26.11.2017, whereby he was informed that he can make a representation against the detention order to the Government. The Government approved the detention order vide order No. HOME/PB-V/2399 of 2016 dated 30.11.2016. On receipt of the opinion of the State Advisory Board, the detention of the petitioner was confirmed by the Government vide Government Order No. HOME/PB-V/2963 of 2016 dated 31.12.2016, for the initial period of three months, which has been extended vide Government orders dated 27.02.2017, 25.05.2017 and 24.08.2017 for three months each.

(3.) The grounds of detention, which should have been formulated by the detaining authority, could not be traced on the record produced on behalf of the respondents. Nevertheless, the record contains two detention orders of even number and date, one of them being a short formal order showing that the petitioner has been detained under section 8(1)(a) of the Act to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, whereas the other contains the details leading to the passing of the detention order. The detailed order would show that the petitioner, a 19 years old boy, is a notorious criminal continuously involved in criminal activities. He is a criminal minded person and his criminal activities are prejudicial to the safety and security of the public in general. Ordinary law has failed to deter him from his involvement in criminal activities. The petitioner is stated to have been involved in following criminal activities: