- (1.)THE detenue, Basharat Hussain S/o Shri Mohammad Nazir, R/o Nagrota, Tehsil & Distt. Rajouri has been detained under section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 vide order No. 01 of 2004 dated 27.01.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajouri with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. The detention of the petitioner was, however, confirmed by the Government vide order No. Home/PBV/693 of 2004 dated 25 -3 -2004 for a period of 24 months and lodged in Central Jail Kote Bhalwal, Jammu. The order of detention came to be challenged by the petitioner on variety of grounds;
(i) that the grounds of detention provided to the petitioner were in English language which were hardly understandable to him and, thus, prevented him from making an effective and meaningful representation against the detention order, (ii) that the detenue, petitioner was already in custody under FIR No. 74 of 2003 for offences under sections 212/216/ 121/122/120 -B RPC of Police Station, Budhal when the order of detention came to be passed, and in the absence of any explanation as to what necessitated the detaining authority to pass the detention order in such an event, would be shady order of detention being without application of mind (iii) that the petitioner, detenue was neither supplied with the copies of FIR, recovery memos, statements, if any, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C and other incriminating material collected by the police during investigation based on which the detention order has been passed nor its translated script in the language which is understandable by the detenue, has been furnished, as is mandatorily required under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India for making a representation to the competent authority against the order of detention, thus, the order of detention renders invalid on this ground also.

(2.)THE respondents in their reply refuted the contention of the petitioner and submitted that the order of detention has been passed with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in anti -national and subversive activities, considering the same prejudicial to the security of the State. The detenue was detained in pursuance of the detention order dated 271.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajouri, respondent -2. It is also stated that the grounds of detention were read over and served upon the detenue and duly explained in the language which he fully understood. The grounds of detention were communicated and furnished to the detenue on 31.1.2004. His case was referred to the Advisory Board and thereafter Government confirmed the detention order for a period of 24 months, based on the opinion of the Advisory Board and other relevant material provided/furnished in this behalf. It was, however, admitted that the detenue was in custody at the time of issuing the detention order, but it was apprehended by the detaining authority that in case of his release on bail, there was likelihood of detenue again acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.
(3.)I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and minute examination of the facts on the file was also done. The detention record has also been made available by Mr. B.S.Slathia, AAG for the perusal of the Court. The detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Rajouri in respect of detenue with a view to prevent detenue, Basharat Hussain, from indulging in anti -national activities prejudicial to security of the State is available on the writ file which reads as;
"Whereas on the basis of grounds of detention placed before me, I District Magistrate Rajouri, am satisfied that with a view to preventing Basharat Hussain son of Mohammad Nazir age 33 years R/O Nagrota Tehsil and District Rajouri from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the state, it is necessary to do so."

The detention order obviously is based on the grounds of detention placed before the District Magistrate, Rajouri by the sponsoring authority. It is further gatherable from the file that the dossier of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Rajouri as also the copy of the FIR No. 74 of 2003, seizer memos, notice for the recovery of mobile phone amongst other things and record were made available to the detaining authority. The detenue in paragraph -8 (iv) of the petition stated that he was not provided with the copies of FIR, recovery memos, statements, if any, recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C and other incriminating material collected by the police, besides investigation report. In the counter -affidavit, filed by respondent -2 it is stated as under;

"...The detenue herein was detained by respondent -2 in pursuance to his Order No. 01/PSA/2004 dated 27 -01 -2004 as his activities were found the prejudicial to the security of the State. The said detention was duly ratified by the Government vide Govt. Order No. Home (PB -V) 693 of 2004 dated 25.3.2004. The grounds of the detention, were duly served upon the detenue before the execution of detention order. The grounds of detention were read over and duly explained to the detenue in the languages which he fully understood as is contained in the execution report other relevant material. The detenue has duly received the grounds of detention on 31 -01 -2004..."