MOHAMAMD SHAFI MIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenue - Mohammad Shafi Mir, was arrested by the security forces in connection with a case bearing F.I.R No. 60/2017, registered at Police Station, Qalamabad, u/s 7/25 Arms Act. While the detenue was in the custody of the police, he was detained by the respondent No. 2 - District Magistrate, Kupwara, in terms of the order of detention bearing No. 15/DMK/PSA of 2017 dated 20-10-2017, impugned herein, in exercise of powers vested in him under clause (a) of section (8) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short Act of 1978) and the detenue was ordered to be lodged in Central Jail, Kotebhalwal, Jammu, where he continues to be at the moment.

(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, Kupwara, against his order of detention. It is also pleaded that the detenue could not have been detained under the provisions of PSA when he was already booked in substantive offence under F.I.R No. 60/2017 registered in Police Station, Qalamabad, u/s 7/25 Arms Act and was in the custody of the respondents when the order of detention was passed. The detenue had not even applied for grant of bail at the time of his detention. It is further pleaded in the petition that the grounds of detention are vague and non existent. The detaining authority has not perused the relevant material before passing the order of detention and as such the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The respondents have pleaded in the counter affidavit that the order of detention has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of J & K Public Safety Act. 1978 (JKPSA). The grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenue and the same have been read over and explained to him. 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.