GHULAM RASOOL SHAH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
GHULAM RASOOL SHAH
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full judgement.
KAWOOSA, J. -
(1.) Judgment passed by learned single Judge on 28-4-1998 in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 620/97 titled above is the subject-matter of challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal. A brief from of the relevant facts is given hereunder.
(2.) It appears that the detenu was initially arrested on 10-9-1993 and some time thereafter, he was detained in the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). He was released from detention on 30-7-1996. As the allegations go, the detenu did not abstain from indulging in militant activities after his release, but he was found involved in some bomb blasts that occurred at various places after July, 1996. Consequently, he was again arrested on 29-6-1997. At the time of his re-arrest, some Arms and ammunition were recovered from him and a case under FIR No. 128/97 under Sections 7/27, Arms Act was registered against him at Police Station Maisuma, Srinagar. A report about these alleged activities of the detenu was made to District Magistrate, Srinagar who ordered the detention of the detenu under the provisions of the Act on 28-8-1997 for a period of two years.
(3.) The detenu through his wife, Mst. Sharifa, challenged the detention ordered on 28-8-97 before the writ-court through the medium of HC Petition No. 620/97 on various grounds. The pleas taken in the petition before the writ-court were that the respondents have not followed the procedural safeguards provided under the provisions of the Act and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution; that the respondents did not make the reference of detenue's case to the Advisory Board within the time prescribed therefor, nor did the Advisory Board send its opinion within time to the Government; that the detenu was not informed of his right of making a representation to the Government against his detention; that the detenu was not supplied with the copy of order of detention, or the material referred to in the grounds of detention; that the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu in a language (English) not comprehendable to him, as a result the detenu was prevented from making a representation against his detention to the Government; and that the detention order suffers from non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.