IMPORTANT POINT
Pendency of prosecution in a substantive offence is no bar to an order of preventive detention. Preventive detention and prosecution are two different areas.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J.—Impugned in this petition is order of detention bearing No.74/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 21.10.2019 (the detaining authority), whereby one Danish Habib Wani S/o Habibullah Wani R/o Hygam Sopore District Baramulla (the detenue) has been detained with a view to prevent him from acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the security of the State.

2. It is claimed that the detenue was arrested by police on 11.09.2019, and was booked in case FIR No.220/2019 and while the detenue was in custody of police in the aforesaid FIR, he was shifted to Central Jail, Srinagar, where he was detained in the preventive custody in terms of the impugned order. The detenue, by the medium of this petition filed through his father, has assailed the impugned order of detention, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(I) That the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and non-existent and on the basis of thereof no prudent person can make a representation against his detention;

(II) That the detenue was already in custody in FIR No.220/2019 when he was detained pursuant to impugned order of detention. He had neither applied for bail nor was same otherwise due to him given the fact that the case registered against him involved commission of substantive offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The detaining authority has not shown any awareness about the aforesaid fact nor has it indicated any compelling reasons to pass the detention order when the detenue was already with the police in connection with supra FIR;

(III) That the detenue is an illiterate person, as such, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to serve the translated version of the grounds of detention upon him which has not been done in the instant case;

(IV) That the detenue was not furnished the relevant material like copy of dossier, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 and 164-A Cr. P. C, seizure memo, recovery memo etc. etc. to enable the detenue to make an effective representation;

3. The detaining authority has filed the reply affidavit, wherein it is submitted that the petitioner was detained on 21.10.2019, under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, and was directed to be lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar. The detention was necessitated because of involvement of the detenue in very serious offences against the State as mentioned in the FIRs registered against him. The detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as the detaining authority against his detention. It is further claimed in the reply affidavit that all statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. The order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention are vague, as such, it is difficult for any person to make an effective representation against such kind of grounds. A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the detaining authority has taken pains to not only mention the dates of incidents but also the names of the militants with whom the detenue had developed contacts. The grounds of detention contain the names of the organizations with which detenue has been found involved. Specific names of the places where the detenue is stated to have participated in the meetings with militants and also the exact role of the detenue in different incidents is specified in the grounds of detention. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be stated that the grounds of detention are vague, as has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Next it has been vehemently contended by learned co