ABDUL HAMID MIR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenue - Abdul Hamid Mir, has been detained vide order No. 64/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 11-07-2017 passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla, 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 lodged in Central Jail, Kotebhalwal, Jammu.

(2.) The order of detention has been challenged on the grounds, inter alia, that the detenue has not been provided the relevant material like copy of the F.I.R, Statement of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC , Seizure Memo and other material, relied upon and referred to in the grounds of detention, as a consequence of which, he has been deprived of the right to make an effective representation against the order of detention before the Detaining Authority, i.e. the District Magistrate, Baramulla. It is also argued that the detenue could not have been detained under the provisions of PSA as he was arrested on 28-06-2017 by the authorities of Police Station Baramulla, in connection with an F.I.R bearing No. 106/2017 for the commission of offences u/s 7/25 Arms Act . Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents, in their reply affidavit, have stated that the detention warrant was executed on 13-07-2017 by one ASI Mir Jehangir No.107/BD, 842173/ EXK of DPL, Baramulla, who read over and explained the contents of the same to the detenue. Assuming the contention to be correct, the said ASI ought to have filed an affidavit to substantiate so, which has not been done in the case on hand. The petition, on this ground alone, deserves to be allowed and, as a sequel to it, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

(3.) It has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that the order of detention has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act of 1978. The grounds of detention have been conveyed to the detenue in the language with which he is conversant and these have been read over and explained to him at the place of his detention, i.e. Central Jail, Kotebalwal, Jammu. 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.