TEJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenue-Tejinder Singh, alias Jinda, was earlier on detained by the respondent No. 3, District Magistrate, Jammu, 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), in terms of detention order bearing No. 05 of 2016 dated 18-04-2016. The said order was, subsequently, revoked by the Government and the detenue was released from the custody. However, by dint of another order of detention bearing No. 07/PSA of 2017 dated 07-06-2017, impugned herein, the detenue was again detained under the provisions of the Act of 1978, on the same set of grounds, which were made the basis for passing of the earlier order of the detention dated 18-04-2016. The detenue was sent to the Central Jail, Kotebhalwal, Jammu, and continues to be there at the moment. The order of detention was executed on 08th of June, 2017.

(2.) The order of detention has been challenged on multiple grounds. However, the main plank of the pleadings and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter-alia, is 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 including the F.I.R. No. 28 of 2016, F.I.R. No. 58 of 2016, F.I.R. No. 30 of 2017 and F.I.R. No. 62 of 2017 registered in police Station, Miran Sahib, R.S. Pura, Jammu. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the detenue has been informed that he can make a representation to the Government against the said detention order, if he so desires. The detenue has not, however, been informed that he can make a representation to the Detaining Authority and this infraction renders the order of detention liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in terms of Execution Report, the detention warrant was executed on 08-06-2017 by one SI Kamal Preet Singh, No. EXJ-109549 of Police Station Miran Sahib, Jammu, who read over and explained the contents of the same to the detenue. Assuming the contention to be correct, the said SI ought to have filed an affidavit to substantiate so, which has not been done in the case on hand. The petition, on this ground also, deserves to be allowed and, as a consequence thereof, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.