Decided on July 11,1986

Abdul Gani Dar Appellant
STATE Respondents


BHAT, J. - (1.) THE detenu, Abdul Gani Dar has filed this petition through Ab. Aziz Dar, who claims to be his well wisher for quashing the detention as also the grounds of the detention dated 30.3.1986 ordered by the District, Magistrate Anantnag.
(2.) IT is asserted in the petition that he was arrested in the first week of March, 1986 by Police Station Kulgam. Petitioner was granted bail but still he was not released from custody because in the meantime the impugned detention order dated 30-3-1986 was issued. The grounds of detention are said to have been served on the detenu through respondent No. 2, but these were without annexures 3, 4 and 5. Detenu is said to have requested the petitioner to file a writ or to take appropriate steps for securing the release of the detenu. The detention is challenged on the following grounds : (i) That the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the grounds of detention are said to be fabricated, It is stated that the incidents which are narrated in the grounds of detention were due to the failure of respondent No. 1 to prevent the situation from turning ugly and for the slackness of respondent No. 1 the detenu is made a scapegoat; (ii) That alongwith the grounds of detention copies of FIRs were not supplied to the detenu. In the absence of copies of FIRs petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation; (iii) That the order of detention was passed when the petitioner was already in judicial lock up and the respondent No. 1 has not made mention of this fact. This would obviously show nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority (iv) That the incidents which are narrated in the grounds of detention apart from being baseless and false would pertain to law and order and not to public order. Therefore detention cannot be sustained on the said incidents; (v) That there is no satisfaction recorded about the detention of the detenu, therefore also the detention of the detenu is bad; (vi) That the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite and detenu on the said vague grounds was not in a position to make a representation. These allegations have been denied by the respondents. Respondent, the Detaining Authority has stated that besides grounds of detention other information which was relied upon was also furnished to the detenu and information was given to the detenu of the grounds well in time. Copies of FIRS were also supplied to him and detention order was also served on -the detenu.
(3.) DURING the course of arguments Mr. Hagroo appearing for the detenu submitted that if copies of the FIRS were supplied to the detenu, respondent No. 2 alone was in a position to say so. He offered to file a supplementary affidavit to the effect that the detenu was not supplied copies of FIRs which are mentioned in paras 3, 4 and 5 of the grounds of detention. He was permitted to do so and respondent No. 2 was also given an opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the affidavit. Accordingly detenu filed an affidavit on 26-6-1986 and Superintendent Central Jail filed the affidavit in rebuttal to the fresh affidavit filed by the detenu. In the supplementary affidavit the detenu has stated that he did not receive documents mentioned in paras 3, 4, 5 of the grounds of detention nor was he supplied with the copy of the detention order. The documents in paras 3, 4, 5 of the grounds of detention are FIRs under which some criminal cases are registered against the detenu in respect of the incidents which are mentioned in those grounds. In reply the Superintendent Central Jail has stated that the detenu was supplied with the grounds of detention as also FIRS in time. The documents which were supplied to the detenu were given to him against a proper receipt and the order of detention was read over to him in his language.;

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