2020 Supreme(J&K) 15
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Serhan Abass Sheikh - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 54 of 2019
Decided On : 27-02-2020
I.H. Bhat, Advocate, Amit Gupta, Advocate, Vishal Bharti, Advocate
Headnote:
J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 - Section 8 – Penal Code - Arrested in aforesaid FIRs - Bail moved by him was rejected by competent Court of law - Before adverting to grounds of challenge urged in this petition it would be necessary to take note of factual antecedents which have led to passing of detention order by detaining authority - As is gatherable from record pursuant to dossier of activities of petitioner supplied - Superintendent of Police vide his detaining authority after taking note of activities petitioner had been indulging in arrived at satisfaction that substantive law had failed to desist petitioner from carrying out his activities which are prejudicial to security of State and therefore it was necessary to keep petitioner under preventive detention – Held, It is further pleaded that case of petitioner after obtaining approval from Government was placed before Advisory Board and pursuant to opinion rendered by Advisory Board Government took conscious decision to place petitioner in preventive detention initially for period of six months which period was later on extended for further period of six months - Having heard counsel for parties and perused record court of view that order impugned is not sustainable in law and therefore deserves to be quashed - From perusal of record it clearly transpires that petitoner was only served with order of detention and grounds of detention four leaves only whereas other material which is strongly relied upon by detaining authority in detention order - Copies of FIRs registered in Police Station Ishtar have not been supplied to detent - Non furnishing of relevant material which is relied upon in grounds of detention vitiates order of detention - That apart court also find that order of detention suffers from total non application of mind - It is true that respondents have relied upon as many as three different FIRs registered against petitioner in Police Station but detaining authority has not shown its awareness as to whether detent was arrested in aforesaid FIRs whether any application for bail was moved by detent or whether Court ever granted or refused bail - Plea of petitioner that he was arrested in and was refused bail by competent Court is not rebutted by respondents in their reply affidavit – Petition allowed
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar, J. - Impugned in this petition is an order of detention issued by the District Magistrate, Kishtwar (for short "detaining authority") bearing No. 202/DM/K of 2019 dated 31.05.2019 whereby the petitioner has been detained under Section 8(2) of the J&K Public Safety Act,1978 ( for short "PSA").
2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged in this petition, it would be necessary to take note of the factual antecedents which have led to the passing of the detention order by the detaining authority. As is gatherable from the record, pursuant to the dossier of the activities of the petitioner supplied by Sr. Superintendent of Police Kishtwar vide his No.Conf/Detention/05/7651-54/C dated 30.05.2019, the detaining authority, after taking note of the activities the petitioner had been indulging in, arrived at the satisfaction that the substantive law had failed to desist the petitioner from carrying out his activities which are prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, it was necessary to keep the petitioner under preventive detention.
3. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority noted that during the year 2018, the petitioner had established contact with a Pakistan based person on whatsapp No.8492822652 and demanded one pistol with rounds for waging war against the lawfully established Government. That apart, a case FIR No. 222/2017 under Sections 307/353 RPC stood registered against the petitioner on 03.11.2017. The allegation against the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR is that he, while being on his Motor Cycle bearing No.JK17/1955, was intercepted at a traffic naka near Police Station Kishtwar and was asked to produce the documents of the Motor Cycle, but the petitioner, instead of producing the same, assaulted upon the naka party with a Toka with criminal intention to murder the cops. Similarly, on 07.12.2018, reliable information was received at Police Station Kishtwar that the petitioner was working as an enemy agent for ISI in District Kishtwar and was supplying photographs of the security forces deployed in the District Kishtwar to ISI of Pakistan. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 307/2018 dated 07.12.2018 under Section 3 EAO was also registered in Police Station Kishtwar. There is another FIR i.e FIR No. 150/2016 registered under Sections 341/323/354/504 RPC in Police Station Kishtwar on the basis of a complaint received from a girl student of 10th class, who was allegedly harassed by the petitioner. On the basis of the material and the activities indulged in by the petitioner, the detaining authority appears to have formulated his satisfaction that with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in the activities prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary to put him under preventive detention. The order of detention has been approved by the Government.
4. As is apparent from the record, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion and pursuant to the opinion rendered by the Advisory Board, impugned order of detention was confirmed by the Government initially for a period of six months vide Government Order No. Home/PB-V/957 of 2019 dated 04.07.2019 which has further been extended for a period of six months vide Government Order No. Home/PBV/210 of 2019 dated 30.11.2019 which period would expire somewhere in May 2020.
5. The impugned order of detention is assailed by the petitioner primarily on the following grounds:
(i) That the detaining authority cannot fix the time limit for detention as the same lies in the domain of the Government who has to take such decision on the basis of the opinion rendered by the Advisory Board;
(ii) That the order impugned suffers from total non-application of mind as the detaining authority has not shown any compelling reason as to why the impugned order of detention was required to be passed despite the fact that the petitioner was already in jail in connection with FIR No. 307/2018; and
(iii) Th