- (1.) PETITIONER Mohammad Jaffar Mir came to be arrested by the Border Security Force at the place known as Khanda, and arms and ammunition in the nature of one A. K. 56 Rifle, Magazine -two of AK 56 Rifle and fifty rounds of AK 56 Rifle came to be recovered from him. Case for the offence under sections 7/27 Indian Arms Act, as FIR 76/98 police station Chadura, came to be registered against him. The Judicial Magistrate Chadoora, granted vide the order dated 1.8.1998 bails in the said FIR not only in favour of the petitioner but other three persons indicated therein as well.
(2.) THE District Magistrate Budgam on receipt of report from the Superintendent of Police Operations, Budgam, passed the order of detention on 31st of August 1998 under his No. PSA/DMB/98 -66, whereunder by exercise of the powers arising out of section -8(2) of the J&K Public Safety Act, he directed the petitioners preventive detention for a period of eight months, so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
(3.) THE grounds of detention state that on the motivation of the Company Commander of the banned Hizbu -Mumineen Organisation the petitioner joined the out -fit, whose aim and object is to secede the State of the Jammu and Kashmir from Union of India, by subersive and anti -national activities. The grounds state that in order to resort to armed struggle against the State, the petitioner exfiltrated to POK in December 1991 to receive arms training and he infiltrated with arms and ammunition in September 1993 and thereafter, indulged in subversive and anti -national activities. Through this petition, which has been filed by the detenus father, the order of detention is challenged on the grounds that by non -supply of the grounds of detention, the copy of the FIR or the dossier the detenu has been un -abled to file the effective representation against the detention order, which in the result of non -application of mind as the detaining authority has not assigned any reasons to resort to preventive detention when the detenu was already in custody of the State for substantive offences covered by the said FIR. The order of detention is further labelled as invalid on the ground that statutory safeguards as mandated by the Public Safety Act have not been complied with as the matter was not referred to the Advisory Board within the statutory period nor was it confirmed by the Government within the time limit allowed by the statute.;