MEHRAJ-UD-DIN RATHER Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-2006-11-30
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on November 06,2006

Mehraj -Ud -Din Rather Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) DISTRICT Magistrate Baramullas Order No. DMB/PSA/3089 dated 29th of April 2006 detaining Mehraj -ud -din Rather S/o Mohammad Akbar Rather R/o Krankshivan Colony Sopore in preventive custody has been questioned in this petition by the petitioner. District Magistrate Baramulla has directed the detention of the petitioner on grounds which read thus: - - "The perusal of the records furnished by Sr. Superintendent of Police Baramulla reveal that you are a Local Trained Militant of a militant organisation Hisbul Mujahidin. Your aim and object is to spread panic and fear in the minds of the peace loving people of the J&K State. Your object is also to cause disruptive activities by planning and causing disturbances. You have lodged a hate campaign by causing terrorist activities to provoke violence and to spread fear among general public and to put them under the threat of terrorism. You exhaurted your associates to cause disturbance among general public. You continued to indulge in such nefarious activities, which are prejudicial to the security of the State. Your aim and object is to demolish peace and tranquility of the state and strike terror. You continued to disturb peace and normal life of the people. You extended full support to militant activities aimed to destabilizing the country in view of the prevailing situation, especially in the valley. You have been considered a potential threat to the security of the State. You are engaged in seeking secession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, from the Union of India through terrorist and violent means. You have been providing all types of assistance to the Pak trained militants, to facilitate them in their activities prejudicial to the security of the State. You have been instrumental in creating terror in the minds of the general public. In order to carry out your object, you have launched a purposeful and well organized programme to strengthen the cause of militancy. In the year 2005, you came into contact with one Fayaz Ahmad Najar, a close associate of dreaded HM militant Jehangir Ahmad Khan @Kinga, who introduced you to said militant. On the motivation of said Jahangir Ahmad Khan, you joined militancy and affiliated yourself with said outfit. You sought training in the use and handling of weapons locally from the active militants operating in the area. You also worked as a carrier and informer for the militants and took part in various subversive activities. However, your activities were checked on 18.04.2006, when on a specific information 46 RR and Police Baramulla apprehended you and your two associates from Gulnar Park Baramulla and recovered arms/ammunition such as 02H/G from your possession. Accordingly case FIR No. 83/06 U/S 7/25 A. Act was registered against you in PS Baramulla. From what has been stated above, it is evident that you are a Local trained militant of Hizbul Mujahidin out fit and your activities are prejudicial to the security of the state as well, as the law enforcing agencies of the state in the event of your release on bail Therefore, you are ordered to be detained under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act 1978. "
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has attacked the order of detention of District Magistrate Baramulla saying that there was no material worth the name on the basis whereof the petitioner could be detained in preventive custody.
(3.) LEARNED counsel further submitted that the petitioner had been deprived of his right to make an effective representation against his detention because of non -supply of requisite material which had been relied upon by the District Magistrate and in that view of the matter he had been deprived of his constitutional right under Article 22(5) of Constitution of India and legal right under Section 13 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, produced the detention records and submitted that there was enough material on records to justify the preventive detention of the petitioner for the second time. He referred to various activities of the petitioner as recorded in the grounds of detention to justify the action of District Magistrate Baramulla.;


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