The detention order can be invalidated if vital and material facts influencing the detaining authority's decision are withheld or suppressed, and if the detenue is deprived of the necessary documents for making a meaningful representation.

The detenue, Mohd. Sharief, has been detained under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 vide order dated 26/05/2003 passed by the District Magistrate Udhampur. Government vide its order dated 18/07/2003 approved his detention for a period of 24 months. The grounds or detention were served upon the detenue. The detenue is said to be an upper ground worker of Hizabul Mujahidin Organisation. He used to harbour local and foreign militants in his house at village Dhaka and Neeram, Tehsil Mahore. The detenue also organized a number of attacks on security forces and minority community in the village and the adjoining areas of Tehsil Mahore. He is also stated to be the informer of the militants and providing them the information about the movement of the security forces and their deployment in the area. The detenue thus, facilitated the militants activities, created terror in the area and caused harassment to the Hindu community and public at large. It is further alleged that on 14/08/2001, he hatched a conspiracy alongwith foreign militants to eliminate the minority community, divided themselves into two groups, one of which moved to the house of Faqir Chand and other towards Partap Singh, attacked and killed their family members, and thereafter planted I.E.D. with the dead bodies with the intention to kill all those persons, who would come there to remove the dead bodies with the explosion of the I.E.D.

The detenue, therefore, is a hard core militant, provided information about the location and deployment of the security forces and after the incident, arranged the safe passage for the militants. The detenue was further stated to be an accused in the case under F.I.R. No. 122/2001 under sections 302, 307, 452, 429, 120-B, RPC, 7/27 Arms Act, registered with the Police Station Mahore and on conclusion of the investigation offences having been established against the accused and his other associates, were sent up for trial and charge-sheeted by theCourt. That the statements of the inhabitants of the village Dhaka & Neeram, Tehsil Mahore further disclosed that the foreign militants and associates have been the regular visitors to the detenue and latter assisted, aided and actively participated with them in carrying out the subversive activities in the area. The detenue also threatened the Village Defence Committee members particularly of Hindu Community, of dire consequences in case they continued to stay in the area, and forced the minority community to migrate with a purpose to usurp their land and property. The presence of the detenue in the area surcharged the atmosphere and let loose a wave of terror amongst the inhabitants. The detenue is stated to have complete knowledge about the topography of the mountainous area and various routes, and all the sources of defence forces felt insecure and threatened in carrying out their operations effectively by his presence in the said area.

2. On the basis of the aforesaid grounds/allegations against the detenue, the detaining authority considered his presence in the area as highly prejudicial to the security of the State and passed an order of his detention for preventive custody in the Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal Jammu, so as to obviate his participation in further subversive activities in future.

3. The order of detention has been challenged by the detenue through his next friend namely Nazir Ahmed, son of Kamal Din, resident of Tehsil Mahore, on variety of gounds viz., (1) That the order of detention has been passed by respondent No. 2 without application of mind to the material provided to him by the Sponsoring Authority and the facts and circumstances of the case; (2) That the material available before the Detainig Authority was insufficient and inadequate to record his subjective satisfaction to the effect that remaining at large of the detenue is neither in the interest of security of the State nor maintenance of the law and order in the State. To support this contention, it is fu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document