BASHIR AHMAD WANI Vs. ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SRINAGAR
LAWS(J&K)-1999-4-38
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on April 02,1999

Bashir Ahmad Wani Appellant
VERSUS
Addl Chief Secretary Home And District Magistrate, Srinagar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BASHIR Ahmad wani has been detained under section 8 of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, under orders of District Magistrate, Srinagar on 10.07.1997, in terms of order No: DMS/PSA/125 dated:03.07 1997 the District Magistrate Srinagar has ordered the detention of said Bashir Ahmad wani for a period of twenty four months in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The father of said detenue challanged the detention of his son in Habeas Corpus Petition No: 406/97. The Single Bench of this court dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned detention order, This judgment of March 3,1998 is impugned before us in this L.P.A.
(2.) BEFORE we deal with the specific legal and factual pleas and the arguments raised on either side in this case, we would like to take note of the following additional facts necessary to decide this appeal.
(3.) THE detenue has been arrested on 23.04.1997 in FIR 66/97 under Section 7/ 27 IAA, registered at police Station Ram Munshi Bagh Srinagar when some arms and emmmunition in the nature of AK 56 Rifle, Mag. AK. Series, Ammunition AK series pistol, Magzine, pistol and rounds, was recovered from him. The order of detention was passed on 03.07.1997 and the petitioner incarcerated as detenue under the said order of detention on 10.07.1997. The detention order annexure -p2 and grounds of detention annexure -pl are not in dispute. The detenues case was laid before the Advisory Board on 18.07.1997. The Board after hearing the detenue in person and on examination of the matter reported continuance of detention to Government on 12.09.97. The Government confirmed the detention order on 18.09.1997. The counsel for petitioner submits that the detention in question is grounded on the question of preventing the petitioner from indulgence in militant activities, as can be seen on a combined reading of order of detention and grounds therefore. The counsel further submits that indulgence in activities of militancy is not same thing as indulgence in activities prejudicial to the security of the state or maintenance of public order. The counsel has taken pains to draw distinction between militant activities and activities prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of the public order. The militant activities may or may not be covered by Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, providing for preventive detention. The question whether the activities of the detenue as placed before the court in this case are prejudicial to the security of the State shall, in our view, have to be considered in the context of the activities encampassed by Section 8 of the act in the background of detenue history, antecedents and accompanying activities pregnated with instances. This ground has been also taken up before the learned Single bench. The learned Single Judge on reference to the observations of Apex Court in Tulsi Ram Patels case (AIR 1985 SC 1416), held that secret links with others can contribute threat to the security and can be the basis for clamping a detention order to prevent the person to indulge in activities which are threat to the security of the State.;


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