MUBASHIR ISHRAT Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2 namely District Magistrate, Pulwama, in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, has passed the detention order No. 18/DMP/PSA/19 dated 15.03.2019 (for short impugned order), in terms whereof the detenue namely Mubashir Ishrat has been detained. The said detention order having been challenged through the medium of instant petition being in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.

(2.) It is being pleaded in the petition that the detenue was arrested on 05.02.2019 by security forces without any justification and was placed in illegal confinement. It is being contended that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations. Furthermore, it is stated that the cases mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It is being further pleaded that the detaining authority has mentioned the FIRs of the year 2018 having no nexus to the present public order situation and the allegations levelled against the detenue are far from the reality. It is further stated that the detenue was already in custody and the said fact has not been mentioned in the detention order and there was no occasion for the respondents to pass the impugned order when the detenue was to face trial in a criminal case, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. In addition, it is stated that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself while as same is replica of the police dossier. Also it is being pleaded that respondent No. 2 has not furnished the material and other connected documents, relied upon by said respondent, to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation. Detenue has also not been informed that within what time-frame he can make representation against his detention, which clearly shows violation of the right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the grounds of detention are precise, proximate, pertinent and relevant. There is no vagueness or staleness in the grounds coupled with definite indications as to the impact thereof, which has been precisely stated in the grounds of detention. Further it is contended that the grounds of detention give complete account of the activities of the detenue which on the face of it are highly prejudicial for maintenance of 'security of the State' as such there was no option left but to order detention of the detenue under Public Safety Act.