BASHIR AHMAD SUALIAH Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this Heabus Corpus petition with a prayer for quashment thereof is the detention order no. 200/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 31.03.2018, purporting to have been passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla, whereunder detenu namely Bashir Ahmad Sualiah s/o Late Ghulam Mohammad Sualiah R/o Mohalla Jadeed Baramulla, District Baramulla, is under detention.

(2.) Grounds pleaded in support of prayer are that after having been quashed the earlier detention order no. 37/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 27th May, 2017, passed in HCP no. 197/2017, the detenu was again detained for the 3rd time in terms of the detention order impugned in this petition on one and the same grounds reflected in the grounds of detention, wherein it is submitted that his further detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in the activities highly prejudicial to the preservation of public order, accordingly while in police custody he was ordered to be detained in preventive custody vide impugned detention order passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla. The earlier detention orders were challenged in H.C. Petition Nos. 635/2016 and 197/2017 which were allowed vide judgment dated 06.05.2017 and 13.10.2017 respectively, but instead of releasing him from custody the authorities ordered to be detained by the instant detention order impugned in this petition. During arguments the counsel has further elucidated the contents of petition with reference to annexures placed on record, and contended that neither the detention in question was legal nor were grounds thereof duly communicated to the detenu even though quite vague and unfounded.

(3.) In his counter affidavit, respondent no.2 has stated that the detenu's activities being highly prejudicial to the preservation of public order and maintenance of the security of the State, his further detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in such acts. During course of his submissions the respondents counsel besides reiterating the contents of counter affidavit has contended that in circumstances of the case the impugned detention is well founded in fact and law.