NAWAB DIN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DETENUE , Nawab Din, S/o Mohd. Din R/o Bassan, Tehsil Mahore, has been detained under section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Act"), vide order dated 31 -03 -2003 passed by District Magistrate, Udhampur. The detention of the detenue was confirmed by the Government for a period of 24 months in exercise of powers conferred by section 17 of the Act, vide Government Order No. Home/PB -V/686 of 2003 dated 26 -05 -2003. The detenue was taken in custody on 01 -04 -2003 and the grounds of detention were served upon him and an opportunity was afforded to the detenue to make a representation to the Government against the detention order, if he so desired.

(2.) THE detention of Nawab Din (detenue hereafter) has been challenged mainly on the following grounds:

(3.) IN repudiating the above contentions, respondents have filed their reply and contended that the petitioner, as a matter of fact, was arrested on 22 -03 -2003 in FIR No. 56/2002 under section 3(1)4 POTA of Police Station, Reasi. The arrest of the petitioner on 08 -09 -2002 has been emphatically denied by the respondents. The detention order was executed on the detenue and detenue taken into custody on Ist April, 2003, and the copy of the grounds of detention along with copies of the relevant documents was provided to the petitioner and a receipt bearing his signatures was obtained from him. It is further stated that the order of detention was passed by the respondents on the basis of subjective satisfaction recorded from the material placed before it by the Sponsoring Authority. The satisfaction recorded was after proper application of mind. It was further denied that the detenue has been deprived of his right of making effective representation for non -furnishing of the copy of FIR, Dossiers, interrogation report, and letter No. PSA/2003/5 dated 31 -03 -2003, a material on which the detaining authority recorded its subjective satisfaction at the time of passing the detention order. It was also denied by the respondents that grounds of detention were served after more than six months in custody. The petitioner was not granted bail in FIR No. 56/2002, in which he was arrested on 22 -03 -2003. However, the petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 159/2002 on 9th September, 2002, but was already released on bail in the said FIR. He was found later on involved in FIR No. 56/2002, in which his arrest was made on 22 -03 -2003 and the authorities found a direct nexus between the preventive action and the past activities of the detenue, which necessitated the passing of the order of detention on 31 -03 -2003 to prevent and dissuade him from subversive or desperate activities. The order of detention passed by the detaining authority was submitted to the Government along with all the relevant material, which formed the basis of detention order. The detention order dated 31 -03 -2003 along with all relevant material was placed before the Government for approval and served on 01 -04 -2003 upon the detenue. After obtaining approval, the case of detenue was further submitted to the State Advisory Board for confirmation, along with entire material documents provided by the Sponsoring Authority on the basis of which, the detaining authority recorded its satisfaction. The Government had approved the detention vide Government Order No. Home -PB -V/441 of 2003 dated 08 -04 -2003. So, this ground is neither available to the petitioner nor would advance the cause of the petitioner, in any manner, whatsoever.