MEERA KHAN Vs. STATE OF J&K AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Noticing the activities of Meera Khan (hereinafter referred to as the detenue) prejudicial to the security of the State, he, pursuant to order No.11/DMB/PSA of 2018 dated 16.08.2018, passed by District Magistrate, Bandipora, has been taken into preventive custody by invoking powers under Clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act. By the instant petition, validity of the said order is assailed on the grounds referred therein.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner projected various grounds while seeking quashment of the impugned order but the star ground is that as per grounds of detention, the detenue has been arrested on 03.08.2018 in case FIR No.119/2018 registered by Police Station Bandipora for commission of offences punishable under Section 7/25 Arms Act and so was in custody of said Police Station when the order of detention has been passed. There was no requirement of passing the order of detention. That apart, in the grounds of detention it has been recorded that there is every likelihood and possibility that the detenue may seek bail. The detenue has not moved any application for grant of bail, as is projected in the petition, then how the detaining authority in the grounds of detention has recorded that there are apprehensions of the detenue getting bail, shows as to how the detaining authority has applied its mind. Learned contended that when bail application has not been filed, how could detaining authority record satisfaction that there is likelihood of release of the detenue on bail.

(3.) It is evident that the detaining authority has not applied its mind properly while passing the impugned order. While detaining a person under Public Safety Act, detaining authority is under a legal obligation to analyze all the circumstances and material and then to gather conclusion about the requirement of depriving a person of his personal liberty. Non-mention about the grant or otherwise of bail is serious lapse which in turn gives rise to the inference that there is non-application of mind. Similar situation has been dealt with by the Apex Court. It is quite relevant to quote following portion from para 8 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another reported in, 1987 AIR(SC) 137:-