Decided on October 27,2020

Union Territory Of JAndK Respondents


Rajnesh Oswal,J. - (1.)Through the medium of this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of the detention order bearing No. 02/PSA of 2020 dated 17.07.2020 and has also sought his release from the preventive detention of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner had gone to the Police Station on 19.07.2020 for recording of his statement in connection with the complaint filed by him on 01.07.2020. From the Police Station he was forcibly taken to Hiranagar Jail and was handed over to the Superintendent of Jail, respondent No. 4 herein. The petitioner has impugned the detention order on the grounds that the grounds of detention, copy of dossier, documents and copies of FIR etc. have not been provided to him and his signatures were taken in Jail on certain papers on the ground that it was a mere formality. It is further stated that the family members of the petitioners had managed to get the copy of the order of detention that has been addressed to one Dayal Singh, who was the father of the petitioner and died on 07.12.1977. It is further stated that the order impugned is a sheer example of non- application of mind on the part of the respondent No. 2. He further submits that the copy of the grounds of detention were managed and arranged by the family members of the petitioner but the same was never supplied to the petitioner. It is further contended that in FIR No. 17/2004, the petitioner stood acquitted by the trial court but the same was never brought to the notice of respondent No. 2. It is further stated that some of the cases referred in the grounds of detention are very old having no proximity with the detention. It is further averred that the petitioner has not been given opportunity or informed of his right to move a representation before the respondent No. 2 as well as before Advisory Committee and the same is grave violation of the safeguards under the Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the Act). It is further stated that the order impugned has been issued at the behest of some officials and some well connected people as mentioned in paragraph No. 14 of the petition. Precisely, the contention of the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed at the behest of influential persons just to silence him who is a whistleblower. It is also contended that the Respondent No. 2 has acted as a rubber stamp on the dossier of the Respondent No. 3and the Respondent No. 2 was not competent to order the detention for indefinite period.
(2.)Reply has been filed by the respondents, in which it has been stated that the petitioner is a notorious criminal and is involved in a number of criminal activities and various FIRs have been lodged against him, therefore, he is the threat to the life and liberty of the public of Samba and detaining the petitioner had become necessity as he was posing great threat to the public peace and tranquility. It is further stated that the detention warrant of the petitioner has been executed in an appropriate way and as per the execution report submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Samba dated 20.07.2020, it is evident that the detention order, dossier of detention and other related documents have been handed over to the petitioner against proper receipt and also that he has been informed that he can move a representation to the Government as well as to the Detaining Authority against his preventive detention. It is further stated that the Government of Union Territory of J&K, Home Department vide order dated 21.07.2020 has approved the impugned detention order and it is further stated that the whole documents have been handed over to the daughter of the petitioner.
(3.)Mr. A.K. Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that mere perusal of the execution report would reveal that neither the grounds of detention nor the FIRs on the basis of which the detention order has been issued by the respondent No. 2, have been supplied to the petitioner and it alone renders the detention order illegal. He further argued that the order of detention reflects the non-application of mind on the part of respondent No. 2.

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