MOHD YOUSUF PARRAY Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition detention of one Yaqoob Dar made by the District Magistrate, Budgam is challenged by the petitioner. The said Yaqoob Dar was detained on 6.11.1987 by the District Magistrate Budgam under the provisions of Public Safety Act. The grounds of challenge are many. It is stated that detention is made on vague and irrelevant grounds and some of the grounds were used against the detenu in 1985 but he was released by the High Court in writ petition No. 15/1985 on those grounds. Same grounds cannot be again used against the petitioner in the detention order which is ordered on 6.11.1987. Certified copy of the order passed in writ petition No. 15/85 dated 1.3.1985 is placed on the record.

(2.) Mr. Trisal appearing for the detenu submits that the material which was supplied to him and which he has placed on record of this writ petition reveals that some allegations which have no proximity with the order of detention are levelled against the detenu. My attention was invited to Annexure P-3 in which it was stated that some timber was seized near the house of the detenu on 10.9.1987. It is contended that seizure of timber near the house of the detenu would not make the detenu a timber smuggler or clothe him with the status of being engaged in timber smuggling in any manner. Annexure P-4 is the report which is made on 17.11.1987 much after the order of detention was made in which allegations are levelled that detenu was still indulging in the activities which are introduced in the Public Safety Act and termed as Timber smuggling. On that date the detenu was admittedly in the detention. He could not be said to be indulging in the timber smuggling. Annexure P-5 is a document which reveals that there was some allegation against the detenu and those cases were compounded by the Forest Department.

(3.) On the basis of the material and the grounds of the detention which were supplied to the detenu, it cannot be said that the detenu was required to be detained under the Public Safety Act. A ground which was used against him in his previous detention which was quashed by writ petition No. 15/1985 is treated to be non-existent. The other grounds are also irrelevant and vague and have no proximity with the object which is sought to be achieved. The material which was placed on record indicated that some facts which could not have happened are also taken into consideration. For instance allegation against the detenu on 17th November that he was still indulging in timber smuggling has no basis because on 6th November itself he was detained and he could not be said to be indulging in timber smuggling.