1. Allegation of providing logistic support to the militants appears the cause for detention of the subject under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (PSA). Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is absolutely no involvement of the detenu in any such activity, therefore, grounds of detention are silent about that. He has further gone to say that the detenu has been detained under the PSA during his jail custody. To substantiate the contention it is submitted that the subject was booked vide FIR 26/08 u/s 7/25 IAA wherein he has not sought any bail which is true even as on date and this factual averment, although specifically pleaded, has not been controverted. Thus it emerges that no motion for bail was ever moved by the subject. Apart from the fact that the allegations of crime narrated in the grounds of detention being so grave that it makes an uphill task for the subject to succeed in getting the bail, even if motion is laid at any stage, yet it is to be seen as to whether grounds of detention can sustain in absence of a motion having been laid for grant of bail. To have the answer, Para 19 of the judgment of the apex Court in Charmendra Suganchand Chelawat and another Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 1990 SC 1196) may be extracted:

The decisions referred to above lead to the conclusion that an order for detention can be validly passed against a person in custody and for that purpose it is necessary that the grounds of detention must show that (i) the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is already in detention; and (ii) there were compelling reasons justifying such detention despite the fact that the detenu is already in detention. The expression compelling reasons in the context of making an order for detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which it may be satisfied that (a) the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future and (b) taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenue, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.

2. Relying upon the judgment supra, the Division Bench of this Court in Mohammad Yousuf Sofi Vs. State and another (SLJ 2003(1) page 218) has held. Paras 13 and 14 may be noticed:

13. Therefore in our view detention order under Sec. 8 of the Act cannot be issued against a person unless it is shown:

a) That the detaining authority was aware of the fact that detenue was already in detention and (b) that there are compelling reasons justifying such detention because the person to be detained already being in custody cannot be expected to engage himself in the prejudicial activities and compelling reasons would imply that there must be cogent material on the basis of which the detaining authority is satisfied (i) that detenue is likely to be released in the near future and (ii) that taking into account the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenue it was likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in the prejudicial activities and that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities.

14. Once these tests are satisfied a detention order under Sec. 8 can be issued against a person who is in custody......

3. The legal position that emerges from judgments supra is that the detaining authority is not powerless to pass an order of detention notwithstanding that such person is already in the custody but what is it required to do is to show from the grounds of detention that it was aware of the fact that the detenue is already in custody and has to spell out the compelling reasons which justify the order of detention. Indicating the compelling reasons, the apex Court has emphasized on the availability of cogen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document