Point of Law: Detention quashed - Order of detention cannot be sustained since ‘live and proximate link’ between grounds of detention and purpose of detention is snapped on account of undue and unreasonable delay in securing appellant/detenu and detaining him.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. Imtiyaz Ahmad Sheikh (“the detenue”) has filed this petition through his father seeking to quash his detention ordered by the District Magistrate, Baramulla (“the Detaining Authority”) vide its Order No. 09/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 04.07.2019.

2. By virtue of the impugned detention order passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter “the Act”) the petitioner has been taken in preventive custody with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. The impugned detention has been ordered on the basis of material supplied by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sopore vide his communication dated 03.05.2019. As per the grounds of detention, claimed to have been served upon the detenue, the detenue after completion of graduation went to Deoband (U.P.) to complete his Fazil degree. He also completed his M.A. degree from Moulana Azad University, Hyderabad. While working in Cotton Textile Company, Srinagar as manager, the detenue came in contact with local militant, namely, Reyaz Ahmad Dar resident of Naseerabad, Sopore in the month of July, 2018 at Darul-ul-Uloom. The said militant motivated the detenue to work with militants as over ground worker. On being motivated, the detenue started working as OGW and after killing of Reyaz Ahmad Dar during an encounter with the security forces, the detenue developed his contacts with the militants of JeM/LeT and started working with them. The detenue started providing food and shelter to foreign and local militants of the aforesaid organizations. The detenue also became a close associate of one foreign militant MosaBahi of Pakistan, who was sheltered by the detenue in his house. There are allegations against the detenue that he was instrumental in strengthening militant activities in Sopore area.

3. Keeping in view the prejudicial activities of the detenue he was apprehended by the police on 17.04.2019 along with other associates during a naka checking at Takyabal Crossing, Sopore. On the disclosure made by the detune, two UBGL Grenades were recovered from MET, Sopore ground near PWD building. In this regard an FIR No. 29/2019 was registered in Police Station, Tarzoo. The petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid FIR and while he was in custody and on remand, it was comprehended that he could succeed in getting bail from the Court and on being enlarged he will again indulge in militancy related activities prejudicial to the security of State. The Detaining Authority, thus, arrived at the satisfaction that it was necessary to place the petitioner in preventive detention with a view to preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.

4. The impugned detention order is assailed by the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that while the petitioner was in custody of the respondents having been arrested in case FIR No. 29/2019 registered in Police Station, Tarzoo, yet the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority on 4th July, 2019 was executed and the petitioner taken in preventive custody only on 27.11.2019. There is, thus, unexplained delay of more than four months in execution of the impugned detention order and placing of the petitioner in preventive custody. Reliance in this regard is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a three-Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in KPM Basheer vs. State of Karnataka and Another, AIR 1992 SC 1353.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urges that the impugned order would not sustain for the reason that the relevant record viz. dossier supplied by the police, copy of the FIR, site plan, seizure memo, arrest memo, discloser memo and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not provided to the petitioner, which prevented him from making an effective representation to the Government against his preventive detenti