UMERDIN Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Petitioner, a foreigner was arrested by security forces after he was found in the State. He has been arrested in FIR No. 7/95 under Section 3-EAO, 3-SA, 12OBRPC, 2/3 E and IMCO registered at P/S CIK Srinagar. He was detained for a period of 24 months by District Magistrate Srinagar-respondent No. 2 under Order No. DMS/PSA/335/96 dated: 1-11-96.

(2.) Petitioner challenged his detention under the provisions of J. and K. Public Safety Act through his counsel Mr. Mir Shafaqat Hussain, Advocate. In main detention order is challenged on the grounds that the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the facts of the case. The detenu was not apprised of his right to make a representation against detention order. Detention order was not approved/confirmed by the Government. The grounds of detention are vague and the detenu was not served with the grounds in the language which he understands. Respondents have filed counter. One Dr. A. G. Sofi, Under Secretary to Government on the basis of access to the record, has filed counter. The grounds of challenge have been countered one by one. Detenue is averred to be an active member of Harkatul Ansar outfit having its headquarters at Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Arrest of detenue in above FIR No. 7/95 registered at P/S CIK Srinagar on 31-8-96 is acknowledged. The detention of the petitioner under orders of respondent No. 2 on 1-11-96 is also admitted. In terms of provisions of Public Safety Act, the case of the detenue is averred to have been put before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board after conducting its proceedings, forwarded its report and opinion to the Government in terms justifying the detention of the petitioner. The Government on receipt of the report with record, confirmed the detention of the petitioner. Even the detenue represented his case before the Advisory Board during the course of the proceedings of the Board. The detenue was apprised of his right of making representation against the detention. The detenue appeared before the Board personally and the Board heard him in the matter. The detenu was provided with grounds of detention and same were readover and explained to him in the language which he understood. The detaining authority applied its mind to the facts of the petitioner's detention and upon subjective satisfaction passed detention order on the specific and cogent grounds. Copy of the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu fully informs the petitioner of the facts and circumstances warranting his preventive detention under the provisions of Public Safety Act. The petitioner has been acting as courier for bringing ammunition explosives from across the border in valley and the instances have been given in the grounds which would specifically reveal that the activities of the petitioner "were highly prejudicial to the security of the State and Union of India".

(3.) In view of the above assertions in the counter affidavit, the detention under Section 8 of Public Safety Act of the petitioner cannot be said to be vitiated on any ground taken up by the petitioner in this petition. The factual and legal grounds taken to challenge the order of detention in the face of rebuttal and counter assertion in the reply affidavit by the respondents does not leave any legal ground to vitiate the detention. The detention appears in order. No rights of the petitioner/detenue as in this case have been infracted or violated. This being so the detention is ruled in order.