ZAKIR HUSSAIN MIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.2(District Magistrate, Kupwara) has, in pursuance of detention order No. 21-DMK/PSA of 2018 dtd. 28/9/2018 ordered detention of one Zakir Hussain Mir (for short detenue) in exercise of powers conferred on him by clause(a) of Sec. 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

(2.) In terms of the instant petition it is being pleaded that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and on mere assertions of the detaining authority no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations and can only be defended as permitted in statute. It is further pleaded that the detaining authority, without applying its mind and without following due procedure under law, has passed the impugned detention order. The detenue was already in custody and there is no possibility of admitting him to bail. The copies of FIR, statement recorded under Ss. 161/164-A Cr.PC, etc. were not made available to the detenue so that he could make effective representation before the detaining authority/Government.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the grounds of detention which reveals that the detenue was allegedly arrested with huge quantity of narcotic substance as well as illegal arms and ammunition and a case FIR No.45/2018 under Ss. 7/25 Arms Act, 8/21 NDPS Act, 13 ULA (P) Act has been registered against him in Police Station, Karnah. Same is stated to have been done on the dictates of sponsoring agency which apprehends that there is likelihood that the detenue may be admitted to bail on the technical grounds. There are no compelling reasons to admit the detenue to bail, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, as he could not be admitted to bail in the case registered against him in law. Learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. Relevant part of the said judgment is quoted as under:-