Decided on March 19,2020

Bunny Gupta Appellant


Sanjeev Kumar,J. - (1.)The detention of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') ordered by the District Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) vide its Order No.03 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019 is subject matter of challenge in this petition. Vide order impugned, the District Magistrate, Jammu, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 8(1)(a) of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, has directed detention of the detenu in the Central Jail, Kote Bhalwal, Jammu with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention has been ordered by the District Magistrate, Jammu inter alia on the ground that the detenu is a notorious/habitual hard-core criminal having been involved in series of criminal cases regarding which as many as 07 FIRs in the Police Stations of R.S.Pura, Akhnoor and Miran Sahib have been registered. The detaining authority has given the details of the criminal cases registered against the detenu and nature of involvement of the detenu. On the basis of the material supplied by the Police in the form of a dossier, the detaining authority has concluded that the detenu is an incorrigible and dreadful criminal, who has caused mayhem in bringing about instability in public order. The detaining authority, on the basis of the material before it, arrived at satisfaction that given the nature of activities, the detenu has been indulging in, consistently over a period of time, it is necessary to place him under the preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is on the basis of these grounds, the requisite satisfaction appears to have been arrived by the detaining authority with regard to the necessity to put the detenu under detention.
(2.)The detenu has called in question the order of detention primarily on the following grounds:-
(i) That the detaining authority has not communicated the detenu the grounds of detention nor was he ever made to understand the accusations and the allegations contained in the grounds on the basis of which his detention has been ordered.

(ii) That the detention order has been executed by one Sub Inspector Shakeel Ahmed and there is no certificate on oath given by the aforesaid Officer whereby it could be established that the grounds of detention were explained to the detenu in the language he understands.

(iii) That the relevant material, particularly, the police dossier, which was relied upon by the detaining authority for issuing the order of detention was never supplied to the detenu.

(iv) That the grounds of detention are totally irrelevant and vague and do not constitute sufficient material on the basis of which the detaining authority could derived the satisfaction with regard to the necessity of placing the detenu under detention.

(v) That the detention order earlier passed by the detaining authority on the same grounds was quashed by this Court in HCP No.36/2018 and therefore, there was no new material to put the detenu under detention. The detention on the self-same grounds is, thus, not sustainable.

(vi) That the order impugned also suffers from non-application of mind.

(vii) That the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate which was required to be mandatorily approved by the Government within 12 days from the date of its passing, has not been approved by the Government and therefore, further detention of the detenu pursuant to the impugned detention order is bad in the eyes of law.

(3.)The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu who supplied the dossier to the District Magistrate, Jammu- detaining authority has filed the reply affidavit. The detaining authority has, however, chosen not to defend its order.

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