AB AHAD PARRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUASHMENT of detention order No. DMS/PSA/28/2008 dated 29.9.2008 is prayed for. Detenu stated to have been a Police Constable stand dismissed in the year 1990. In the grounds of detention detenu is shown to have been arrested in the year 1994, had remained in detention till 1999. Thereafter got affiliated with hard line Secessionist Group having discrete links with the terrorists, is an important functionary of 'Muslim League and indirectly of APHC(G -Group), has been receiving money to run the affairs of outfit, has played a key role for arranging and managing the violent protests, so as to execute the programmes sponsored by the co -ordination committee of APHC. The rallies resulted in large scale of human loss and property. Co -ordination Committee has given a programme for holding unlawful administration, whereas petitioner has been assigned role for ensuring maximum participation of people in these rallies, had to arrange transport, more particularly from Kupwara and Handwara belt. In case of permitted to perform the job assigned, there is likelihood of disturbances of peace and the terrorists will get the free hand. For maintenance of security of the State, invoking of normal laws shall not be enough, as the petitioner may get bail from the Court, so the order of detention under PSA is imperative.

(2.) FIRST it is contended by the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in fact acts attributable to the detenu presumably related to the period of 'Amar Nath Land Row, the grounds of detention are vague, nothing specific is reflected in the grounds of detention, which would indicate that the petitioner in any way is required to be detained. The detenu has not been provided any material which forms the base for grounds of detention, so as to enable him to make the effective representation against the detention. Detenu has not been informed to make any representation. Learned counsel further added that detention order smacks non application of mind, has been passed on ambiguous, vague, uncertain and in -definite grounds. Further more order of detention is based on stale and out -dated grounds. In support of the contention learned counsel placed much reliance on the Judgment, Union of India v. Ramu Bhandari, Cr. Law Journal 2008 page 4567.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have not chosen to file Counter affidavit and have also chosen to remain absent. However, during course of arguments perusal of the record was found imperative, same on direction has been furnished by the District Magistrate Srinagar.