TUFAIL AHMAD ZALDAR Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
LAWS(J&K)-2020-3-47
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 20,2020

Tufail Ahmad Zaldar Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SURYA PRAKASH SHARMA V. STATE OF U.P [REFERRED TO]
RAZIYA UMAR BAKSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SOPHIA GULAM MOHAMMAD BHAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Ali Mohammad Magrey,J. - (1.)Through the instant petition, petitioner father of detenu seeks quashment of detention order bearing no. DMS/PSA/81/2019 dated 16.08.2019, passed by District Magistrate Srinagar, whereby the detenu namely Tufail Ahmad Zaldar S/o Mohammad Shafi Zaldar R/o Ranger Stop Zaldar Mohalla, Saidakadal, Srinagar, is under detention.
(2.)In the dossier it is alleged that the detenu is involved in anti- national activities, disturbing the public tranquility and peace in the area of Saidakadal and its adjacent areas. It is submitted that the detenu was found indulging in disturvbing the maintenance of public order by way of resorting to stone pelting. It is submitted that the detenu is a constant threat to the security of the State. It is submitted that the detenu was arrested in cases FIR no. 70/2019 u/s 307, 147 RPC and FIR 47/2019 u/s 147, 148, 336 RPC registered at Police Station Nigeen. Therefore, on these allegations he was slapped under Public Safety Act, 1978.
(3.)The learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu has raised primarily three issues before the court questioning the validity of the detention. The first point taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detention order was passed while the detenu was already in custody in respect of the FIR No. 70/2019. In these circumstances, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority ought to have satisfied himself with the fact that there was imminent likelihood of release of the detenu in that case and that it was necessary to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no such satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. and others: 1994 SCC (Cri) 1691 to submit that since the said satisfaction was not recorded, the detention order was vitiated.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.