LAWS(J&K)-2019-5-100

MOHAMMAD AZHAR UD DIN PARRAY Vs. STATE

Decided On May 09, 2019
Mohammad Azhar Ud Din Parray Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this Heabus Corpus petition with a prayer for quashment thereof is the detention order no. 20/DMB/PSA of 2018 dtd. 4/10/2018, purporting to have been passed by District Magistrate, Bandipora, whereunder detenu namely Mohd Azhar ud din parray s/o Abdul Rehman Parray R/o Chandergeer Tehsil Hajin, District Bandipora, is under detention.

(2.) Grounds pleaded in support of prayer are that after having been quashed the earlier detention order no. 22/DMB/PSA of 2017-18 dated 10th Feb. 2018, passed in HCP no. 41/2018, the detenu was again detained for 2nd time in terms of the detention order impugned in this petition on one and the same grounds reflected in the grounds of detention, wherein it is submitted that his further detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in the activities highly prejudicial to the security of the State, accordingly while in police custody he was ordered to be detained in preventive custody vide impugned detention order passed by District Magistrate, Bandipora. The earlier detention order was challenged in H.C. Petition No 41/2018 which was allowed vide judgment dtd. 6/6/2018 but instead of releasing him from custody the authorities ordered to be detained by the instant detention order impugned in this petition. During arguments the counsel has further elucidated the contents of petition with reference to annexures placed on record, and contended that neither the detention in question was legal nor were grounds thereof duly communicated to the detenu even though quite vague and unfounded.

(3.) In his counter affidavit, respondent no.2 has stated that the detenu's activities being highly prejudicial to the security of the State, his further detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in such acts. During course of his submissions the respondents counsel besides reiterating the contents of counter affidavit has contended that in circumstances of the case the impugned detention is well founded in fact and law. Detention record produced by the state counsel.