SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(J&K) 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Syed Imtiyaz Hyder – Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K and Another – Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) No. 474 of 2019
Decided On : 30-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bashir Ahmad Tak.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mir Suhail.

Point of Law: Preventive Detention - Detention order quashed - If order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of period of detention there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22(5) - Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 - Section 13 - RPC - Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 341, 332 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 22(5) - Quash of Detention order - Petitioner was not released and respondents passed yet another detention order, which is order impugned in instant petition - Petitioner has questioned impugned order of detention inter-alia on grounds that constitutional as well as procedural safeguards as envisaged under Constitution of India as well as under Act have not been complied with by Detaining Authority while passing order of detention.

Finding of the Court:

Grounds of detention it transpires that order impugned has been passed on similar grounds as narrated in earlier grounds of detention on basis of which earlier order of detention was passed except FIR. Perusal of FIR as narrated in grounds of detention reveals that an unruly mob appeared and attacked Police party with intention to kill them and during stone pelting, some security personnel got injured. During investigation petitioner was found involved in said case. It is mentionable here that said incident pertains to month of April, 2018, whereas earlier detention order was passed meaning thereby that on basis of said FIR, petitioner was not ordered to be detained earlier. Grounds of detention of earlier detention order have been taken into consideration while passing impugned order of detention by Detaining Authority. Same grounds could not have been relied upon by respondents for issuance the fresh detention order. The law is well settled that if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of period of order of detention, there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order of detention. When detention order has been quashed by court, grounds of said order are not to be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with fresh grounds of detention in order to pass a fresh detention order and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while passing a fresh detention order, order of detention will be vitiated.

Result: Petition is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. Through the medium of this petition filed through his son, the petitioner has questioned the order of detention bearing No. DMB/PSA/31 of 2019 dated 29.07.2019 issued by the respondent No. 2, by virtue of which the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short, the Act).

2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was initially arrested on 10.03.2019 by the SOG/Police of Police Station, Budgam and was falsely implicated in FIR bearing No. 96/2017 for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 341, 332 RPC and during his continuation of arrest in the above mentioned FIR, the petitioner was detained under the Act, vide order dated 16.03.2019. The said order of detention was impugned by the petitioner through the medium of writ petition bearing No. 117/2019 and the said order was quashed by virtue of judgment dated 12.07.2019. It is further stated that the petitioner was not released and the respondents passed yet another detention order, which is the order impugned in the instant petition. The petitioner has questioned the impugned order of detention inter-alia on the grounds that the constitutional as well as procedural safeguards as envisaged under the Constitution of India as well as under the Act have not been complied with by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention. The order of detention was neither referred to the Advisory Board nor was approved within the stipulated time. No material that has been relied upon by the Detaining Authority has been furnished to the petitioner thereby depriving the petitioner of his valuable right of making effective representation against preventive detention. The order of detention has been passed after a gap of 15 months, as such, the order of detention has been passed on stale grounds. The petitioner has also placed on record earlier order of detention along with grounds of detention.

3. The respondents have filed the response, in which they have stated that the petitioner has been detained pursuant to the order of detention passed by the respondent No. 2 and while doing so the procedural as well as statutory safeguards enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the Act have been complied with by the respondents. They have further stated that they have supplied all the requisite documents to the petitioner so as to enable him to make an effective representation to the detaining authority and to the Government. The order of detention was executed on 31.07.2019 by the Executive Officer, ASI Bashir Ahmed and the petitioner was handed over to the Superintendent of District Jail Jammu for lodgment. The contents of the detention order/warrant and the grounds of detention were read over and were explained to the petitioner in the language which he fully understood and the petitioner was also informed of his right to make an effective representation to the Detaining Authority. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion and after the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government vide Order No. Home/PB-V/1950 of 2019 dated 19.09.2019 has confirmed the order of detention dated 29.07.2019. It is further stated that the petitioner has been found involved in FIR No. 263/2009 for commission of offences under sections 147 and 148 RPC and 13 ULA(P) Act of Police Station, Budgam, FIR bearing No. 306/2010 for commission of offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 307, 436, 332 and 427 RPC of Police Station, Budgam, FIR bearing No. 403/2010 for commission of offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 336 and 427 RPC of Police Station, Budgam, FIR bearing No. 406/2010 for commission of offences under sections 307, 392, 436, 147, 148, 149, 188, 332, 120 and 342, RPC of Police Station, Budgam, FIR bearing No. 407/2010 for commission of offences under sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 188, 120-B,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top