J.P.SINGH, J. - (1.)APPELLANTS Habeas Corpus Petition No. 86/2007, questioning District Magistrate, Baramullas Order No. 313 of 2006 dated 20th of July, 2006, directing his detention for a period of twelve months has been dismissed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court vide his Order of October 1, 2007.
(2.)DISSATISFIED with the judgment, the appellant has come up in appeal to us.
(3.)APPELLANTS Learned counsel Mr. Shaheen says that the detention order impugned in H.C.P No. 86/2007 was bad in law because it had been executed after a period of more than eight months and no reasons had been assigned by the Learned District Magistrate justifying the delay in its execution. Appellant had specifically stated in his writ petition that he had been attending trial in FIR Nos. 28/2005 & 68/2005 before Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sopore and despite his being available, the respondents had opted not to execute the detention order which clearly demonstrated that there was no necessity for issuance of the detention order. His next contention is that non -application of District Magistrates mind in issuing the detention order was apparent from a bare perusal of Order No. 313 of 2006 which had recorded that the activities of the appellant were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, whereas the grounds of detention served later did not show any such activities indicating those to he prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, and had instead referred to the alleged involvement of the appellant in activities relating to smuggling of timber. It is further stated by appellants counsel that the petitioner had been on bail in the F.I.Rs, mentioned in the grounds of detention, but this fact does not appear to have been conveyed to the Learned District Magistrate and unaware about the petitioners release on bail, Learned District Magistrate had proceeded to pass his detention order which was as such unsustainable. Learned Counsel says that the Learned Single Judge had not dealt with any of the grounds specifically raised in appellants petition and the impugned judgment was, therefore, liable to be set aside and quashed.
Justifying the preventive detention of the appellant, Learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment on the basis of the activities which had been attributed to the appellant in the grounds of detention.