SHAMIM AHMAD BEIGH Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-2006-5-28
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on May 18,2006

Shamim Ahmad Beigh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) SHAMIM Ahmad Beigh seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing Order No. Det/PSA/06/210 dated 13.02.2006 passed by second respondent, District Magistrate Anantnag, directing his detention under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Detention has been questioned, in nutshell, on the ground that on an earlier occasion also the petitioner was detained in preventive custody vide second respondents order No.Det/PSA/05/3 64 dated 07.01.2005, which was quashed by this Court in terms of its judgment dated 25.10.2005 recorded in case No. HC 94/2005 and that in view of the quashing earlier detention order, the petitioner could not be detailed on the same allegations on which his detention hn -1 been quashed by this Court on an earlier occasion. The petitioner submits that there was no material on records before District Magistrate on the basis whereof a satisfaction could be reached at that the petitioner was indulging in activities detrimental to the security of the State. It is urged by the petitioner that delay in execution of the warrant for 11/2 months renders the detention order unsustainable.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit filed by the State -respondent indicates that the petitioner is an over -ground worker of terrorist organization namely 'Hazibul Mujahideen and had been providing food and shelter to the militants operating in Anantnag town. It is further urged by the respondents that petitioner had been found involved in extortion from general public for providing the extortion money to the militants of Hazibul Mujahideen outfit for carrying subversive activities. Various other allegations too have been raised by the respondents, on the basis whereof, the detention order issued in respect of the petitioner, is sought to be justified. In addition to the support provided by the official respondents to the detention order and grounds of detention on the basis whereof detention of the petitioner has been ordered by District Magistrate, Anantnag, it is urged that the petitioner is disentitled to maintain his petition because he had not surrendered before coming to the Court to question his detention.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records supplied by Sh. M. A. Rathore, learned Addl. AG. True it is that earlier detention order issued in respect of the petitioner was quashed by this Court vide its judgment dated 1:110.2005 delivered in case No. HC 94/2005; this, however, in my opinion, would not debar the State -respondent from passing a fresh order of detention because the detention of the petitioner had been quashed only on the ground of non - supply of material relied upon by the detaining authority in directing the detention of the petitioner.;


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