1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by Abdul Ahad Rather S/o Mohd. Mansoor Rather R/o Tekipora, Sogam, Kupwara (the detenu) through his father Mohd. Mansoor Rather. It is alleged that the detenu came to be arrested on 3.06.2003. He was later booked in FIR No. 34/03 under Sections 307,149,120 RPC, and 7/25 Arms Act of Police Station Lalpora, Kupwara, FIR No. 58/2002 of P/S Sogam for offences u/s _ POTA, 302, 307,120 B RPC, 7/25 A.A., FIR No. 83/2003 of P/S Kupwara u/s 302,307 RPC, 7/25 AA, and FIR N. 85/2002 P/S Sogam, u/s 302 RPC, 7/25 Arms Act. The grounds of detention as issued by respondent No. 2 shows that the detenu was serving in Police Department of J&K Government as Selection Grade Constable. The main allegation against him is that he was working over ground worker of J.E.M, the unlawful organisation and that his aim and object was to indulge in such nefarious activities which were highly prejudicial to the security of the State. The grounds of detention gives various activities in which the detenu has allegedly indulged. Ultimately the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that ordinary law of the land will not serve as a corrective, hence, his detention under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act 1978 (for short the Act) becomes imperative.

2. The impugned order. No. DMK/PSA68-70 dated 12.09.2003 reads as under:

"Whereas, you have been detained vide order No:07 DMK/PSA of 2003 dated 12.09.2003 made by me under section 8 of J&K public Safety Act 1978.

Now, therefore, in pursuance of sub section 2 of section 13 of the said Act, you are hereby informed that your detention has been ordered on the ground specified in the annexure hereto. You may inform the Home Department J&K Govt. Srinagar if you would like to be heard in person by the Advisory Board.

You may make a representation to the Government against the said detention, order, if you so desire."

3. The detention order has been challenged on various grounds. It is alleged that the detention of the detenu has been passed on the ground that ordinary law of the land is not enough as a corrective measure to prevent the detenu from the activities prejudicial to the security of the State and that the order is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in various authorities.

4. Respondents have in their counter affidavit stated that as the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the security of the state his detention was found absolutely necessary and, accordingly, he was ordered to be detained by respondent District Magistrate, Kupwara vide order No. 07 DMK/PSA of 2003 dated 12.09.2003 with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

5. Heard. Considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the only ground taken by the detaining authority to detain the detenu is that the ordinary law of the law will not serve as a corrective, hence his detention has become imperative. He has referred to the judgment of this Court delivered in Gh. Nabi Dar v. State of J&K and others, 2002 KLJ 637 and has argued that in view of this authority the ground is no more available to the State to detain the present detenu.

6. This Court has in the above cited authority observed as under:

"The compelling reasons spelled out by the detaining authority are, that ordinary criminal law is not enough to prevent detenu from such subversive activities. Similar proposition of law was also in HCP No. 97/2000 titled Bilal Ahmad Bhat v. State and Ors. Wherein while dealing with it, satisfaction and the reasons disclosed by the detaining authority while directing the preventive detention of the detenu is that the ordinary law of the land is not sufficient to deter the detenu from his activities. This cannot be accepted either as a ground or detention."

7. This authority was followed by this Court in Mohd. Rustum Lone v. State HCP NO. 209/2003 decided on 10.8.2004.

8. In view of this authority the grou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document