SHAMIM AHMAD BEIGH Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Shamim Ahmad Beigh
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full 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
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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.