SIKENDER E AZAM Vs. STATE OF JANDK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THROUGH the instant petition, Sikander-e-Azam (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the detenue') has questioned the detention order (Annexure-A) dated 28. 7. 2006 passed by District Magistrate, Jammu (respondent No. 2 ). The main attack launched is that it reflects non-application of mind on the face of it and that flaw by itself is sufficient to quash it.

(2.) MR. Mughal asserts that in the grounds of detention, which according to the stand of the State, were supplied to the detenue (although vehemently denied), the apprehension projected by respondent No. 2 was that although at that moment, the detenue was in custody in FIR No. 5/2006 registered at Police Station, Satwari, but in the event of his release on bail or otherwise, he was likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State. This is, in fact, factually incorrect. This indicates that either the true facts were not supplied to respondent No. 2 or he has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order of detention.

(3.) DWELLING upon his arguments, Mr. Mughal then submits that when this case was taken up on 9. 10. 2007 for hearing, he had joined issue on this vital flaw to which mr. Salathia sought an adjournment for filing an affidavit of the concerned police official. One Arvinder Kotwal, SHO Police Station Satwari, jammu, has now tendered his affidavit, which, on facts runs contrary to what is said in grounds of detention. Respondent no. 2 is, otherwise, not clear on this aspect in his objections filed to the main petition. According to the learned counsel, co-joint reading of grounds of detention, the objections filed by respondent No. 2 and the affidavit of SHO concerned, would indicate non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Therefore, the detention order deserves to be quashed.