ASHIQ HUSSAIN TELI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenue Ashiq Hussain Teli, has been detained by the respondent No. 2 District Magistrate, Baramulla, in terms of the detention order bearing No. 81/DMB/PSA/2017 dated 12-08-2017, 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). The detenue has been lodged in Central Jail Kotbhalwal, Jammu, and continues to be there at the moment. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the detenue was arrested by the security forces on 05-08-2017 from his home. He was taken to police station, Sopore, where he was implicated in a case bearing F.I.R No. 214/2016 and F.I.R No. 196/2017. Thereafter the detenue was shifted to Central Jail Kotbhalwal, Jammu, by the dint of the impugned order of detention. The order of detention was executed on 13th of August, 2017. The grounds of detention, along with the allied documents, are said to have been served on the detenue and the contents thereof, as contended, are stated to have been read over and explained to him in the kashmiri language which he understood fully well.

(2.) The order of detention has been challenged on the grounds, inter alia, that the detenue has not been provided the copies of the relevant material like the copy of the dossier, the copies of F.I.Rs and the Statement under section 161 Cr.PC. He is, thus, said to been deprived of the right to file an effective representation before the Detaining Authority, i.e. the District Magistrate, Baramulla, against his order of detention. It is also argued 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents, in their reply affidavit, have stated that the detention warrant was executed on 13th of August, 2017 by one ASI Nazir Mohammad No. EXK/831955-191/A, of DPL Sopore, 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 consequence thereof, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the order of detention has been passed after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of J and K Public Safety Act. 1978 (JKPSA). 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, Kotbhalwal. 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.