Judgment

1. By virtue of order bearing No. 28/DMP/PSA/2019 dated 19.04.2019, (for short impugned order) passed by respondent No. 2 – District Magistrate, Pulwama, the detenue namely Suraj Manzoor Malik S/o Manzoor Ahmad Malik R/o Shah Mohalla Midoora , Tehsil Awantipora District Pulwama, has been taken into preventive custody by invoking powers under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 (for short the Act), as his activities were found to be prejudicial to the ‘Security of the State’. Quashment of the said order is sought on the following grounds in terms of the petition:

i) That the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of the detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations and can only be defended in a Court of law. The cases mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and has been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue.

ii) That the detenue was arrested on 20.02.2019 and was booked in case FIR No. 49/2019 U/S 18, 20, 38 and 39 ULA (P) Act and in view of offences alleged therein there was no likelihood of him getting out of custody on bail in near future as the offence alleged against the detenue was non bailable offence and there is no cogent reason given by the detaining authority on the basis of which it can be presumed that there was likelihood of bail when admittedly offences alleged with the detenue are non bailable and the detenue has not applied for bail. Thus non application of mind by the detaining authority has rendered the detention order bad in law.

iii) That the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations and passing of detention on such grounds is unjustified and unreasonable.

iv) The detaining authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass the detention order and as such, the impugned order of detention suffers from complete non application of mind.

v) That the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by itself, which is a pre requisite for him before passing any detention order. The grounds of detention are replica of the police dossier and depicts the non application of mind by the detaining authority.

vi) That one amongst the grounds mentioned in the grounds of detention is that the normal law has not been sufficient to detain the detenue, however, normal law was never invoked nor it is mentioned anywhere in the grounds of detention that the normal law was ever invoked and the detaining authority has made this assumption without any basis.

vii) That the detaining authority – respondent no. 2 has not furnished the relevant material such as dossier, copy of FIR and statement under 161 Cr. PC to the detenue to enable him to make an effective representation, therefore, the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the detenue under Article 22 (5) stands infringed.

viii) That the detenue was not informed that he has a right to make representation against his detention order nor the respondents disclosed to him before whom authority of Government he can make representation, which is in total violation of the rights of detenue as guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 13 of Public Safety Act.

ix) That the detenue under stands only Kashmiri and Urdu language but the order of detention is in English that too in hyper technical works and no translated Script in Kashmiri or Urdu was furnished to the detenue nor was the grounds read over and explained to him in the language he understands so that he can make effective representation. Non-supply of the translated scripted as well as non-explanations of the grounds of detention has prevented the detenue from making an effective representation and has violated his fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

2. Respondents have filed the counte