FARHAN FAYAZ LILU Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the dint of the order bearing No. 73/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 17th of July, 2017, passed by the Respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Baramulla, in exercise of the powers conferred in him under clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short " The Act of 1978"), one Farhan Fayaz Lilu @ Furu S/o Fayaz Ahmad Lilu R/o Mohalla Jamia, Baramulla, District Baramulla, has been detained and lodged in Central Jail, Kotebhulwal.

(2.) The detenue has challenged the said order of detention, chiefly, on the grounds that the detaining authority has failed to apply his mind to the fact whether the preventive detention of the detenue was imperative, HCP No. 294/2017 Page 1 of 7 notwithstanding his custody in a substantive offence. To this, it has been added, that the Respondent No. 2 has passed the order of detention on the dictates of the sponsoring agency, i.e. the Officer who has prepared the police dossier and no attempt has been made by the Respondent No.2 to scan and evaluate it before passing the order of detention.

(3.) Counter has been filed by the Respondents, wherein it is stated that the grounds of detention have been furnished to the detenue. The detaining authority has complied with the requirement of Clause 5 of Article 22 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The detenue has failed to avail the remedy prescribed under the Act. He has not filed the representation against the order of detention. It has also been stated that the detenue is involved in case FIR No. 272/2016 registered in Police Station, Baramulla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 17, 18-B, 19 ULA (P) Act; case FIR No. 283/2016 registered in Police Station, Baramulla, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 13 ULA (P) Act; and case FIR No. 339/2016 registered in Police Station, Baramulla, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307 RPC, 7/27 Arms Act . In the end, it has been urged that since the order of detention has been passed on justifiable grounds, therefore, the instant Habeas Corpus petition merits dismissal, and it may, accordingly, be dismissed.