Tashi Rabstan,J. -
(1.)District Magistrate, Shopian respondent no.2 here (for brevity "detaining authority"), has, by Order no. 42/DMS/PSA/2019 dated 10.08.2019, placed Saboor-ul-Haq Malla S/o Mohammad Iqbal Malla R/o Pehlipora Shopian (for short "detenu") under preventive detention, with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner which is prejudicial to the security of the State/Country. It is this order, of which petitioner is aggrieved and throws challenge thereto on the grounds tailored in petition on hand.
(2.)The case set up by the petitioner in instant petition is that detenu was arrested by the Police Station Shopian on 03.08.2019, in view of his alleged involvement in FIR No. 88/2018 under Sections 307 RPC, 7/27 A. Act, 16, 18 ULAP Act, FIR No. 208/2018 under Sections 302 RPC, 7/27 A. Act, 16 ULAP Act and FIR No. 281/2018 under Sections 307, 302, 395, 353 RPC, 7/27 A. Act, 16 ULAP Act by the Police Station, Shopian and thereafter was placed under preventive detention in terms of impugned detention order.
2.1. It is averred in the petition that the detenu was not detained in accordance with the provisions of Public Safety Act while ordering detention of detenu.
2.2. It is contended that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable. The cases mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenu and have been fabricated by Police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenu.
2.3. It is also contended that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention himself, has relied only on the police Dossier and not perused any supporting material and seems to have worked on the dictates of police authorities without application of mind.
2.4. It is also averred that the respondents have not provided copies of the FIRs, Statements of witnesses and other material relied upon in the grounds of detention, enabling the detenu to make an effective representation.
2.5. It is claimed by petitioner in petition that the detenu was not told about his rights to make a representation against his detention order to the detaining authority, neither the specified officer before whom the representation was to be made, which has prejudiced his rights.
2.6. It is also claimed that the detention order has not been executed within the stipulated period of time nor has it been approved by the Government within stipulated time which renders detention illegal.
2.7. It is stated that the detenu was not provided the particulars of the youth who are alleged to have been motivated/instigated by the detenu to join the militancy.
2.8. It is submitted by the petitioner that three FIRs have been mentioned in the grounds of detention, however, the detenu was shown involved in only one FIR, i.e., FIR No. 208/2018, therefore, it is clearly evident that the detention order was issued without proper application of mind. It is also submitted that the respondents have also not disclosed whether the person who has explained the detenu is familier with the language which the detenue understands and also the date of month of the incident has not been mentioned.
2.9. In support of arguments, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2013 (4) JKJ 663, 2005(1) SLJ 46, 2005(1) SLJ 253, 2007 (3) JKJ 114.
(3.)Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents. Record of the District Magistrate's office has also been produced.