1. Grounds of detention in all the five petitions are similar, xerox-copy of the grounds of detention form basis for each detention order under challenge. Therefore, all these petitions are disposed of together by this common judgment.

2. As per the grounds of detention, detenues have been allegedly indulging in timber smuggling for so many years, they visit the forests during night hours, cut down the trees, dress them into Phadas (Sleepers) and then smuggle the same on horses and mules. After transporting they keep the same concealed at unknown places wherefrom they manage dispatching them to different quarters for sale. In the process, they used to succeed in giving slip to the law enforcing agencies and by their acts extensive damage is caused to the forests which affect the forest wealth and economic development of the State.

3. It is further stated that in most of the ambushes laid by Police, the detenues succeeded to escape alongwith stolen timber. On 01.01.2008 at about 2200 hours, Forest Range Officer, Shopian lodged the report in Police Station Shopian to the effect that he had intercepted the five smugglers at 1900 hours on 01.01.2008 five horses loaded with 10 Phadas (Sleepers) of Green Kail were seized and produced; case was registered as Crime No. 171/2008 Police Station Shopian for commission of offences punishable under Section 379 RPC and Section 6 of Forest Act. It is further stated in the grounds of detention that detenues in the said case are arrested but there is every likelihood that they may manage release on bail and would again indulge in timber smuggling.

4. Based on the aforesaid grounds against all the five detenues, five separate detention orders bearing nos. 44/DMS/PSA/2008, 45/DMS/PSA/2008, 46/DMS/PSA/2008, 43/DMS/PSA/2008 & 42/DMS/PSA/2008 dated 07.10.2008 respectively have been passed.

5. Appearing counsel for the petitioner first contended that when all the detenues were under custody in connection with FIR No. 171/2008 for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 RPC and Section 6 of Forest Act in Police Station, Shopian, there was no requirement of passing the order of detention, more so, when the detenues had not applied for bail. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that whether the detenues had applied for bail or not, could not stand in the way of the detaining authority in passing the orders of detention. In the grounds of detention, it is mentioned that the detenues are in custody but there is every likelihood that they may manage to get release on bail.

6. It is trite that there is no bar for detaining a person under Public Safety Act, even if he is already in custody in connection with any other case but the detaining authority has to record compelling reasons so as to justify the order of detention. Simply to say that the detenues may manage release on bail is not sufficient that can be termed to be ipse-dixit of the detaining authority. There should be some supporting material to show that the detenues are likely to get released on bail. To infer that the detenues have imminent possibility to come out on the bail must be borne out by the material; in absence of such material no such inference can be drawn.

7. It shall be quite relevant to quote Para 26 of the judgment reported in JT 2008 (9) SC 243 captioned K.K. Saravana Babu vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another.

"The order of detention was passed as the detaining authority was apprehensive that in case the detenu was released on bail he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area. If the apprehension of the detaining authority was true, the bail application had to be opposed and in case bail was granted, challenge against that order in the higher forum had to be raised. Merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under-trial prisoner was likely to get bail an order of detention under the National Security Act should not ordinarily be passed. We are inclined to agree with counsel for the petitioner that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document