Point of Law : Provisions of the Section 8, thus, clearly provide that it is the satisfaction of the State Government on the point which alone is necessary to be established.

JUDGMENT :

1. The order no.41/DMP/PSA of 2020 dated 24.11.2020, passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama (for brevity “detaining authority”), placing one, Ayaaz Bashir Shergojri S/o Bashir Ahmad Shergojri R/o Marwal Tehsil Kakapora, District Pulwama (for short “detenu”) under preventive detention so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and directing his lodgment in Central Jail, Jammu (Kot-bhalwal), has been challenged in this petition precisely on the following grounds :

(i) that detenu was detained illegally and unlawfully and he was not informed of any reasons of same and neither was communicated the grounds of detention, and the material considered in framing the grounds of detention have not been supplied to detenu and, therefore, the procedural safeguards provided under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act, have been blatantly violated;

(ii) that detention order itself depicts non-application of mind and the detaining authority has relied upon an incident of 22.06.2019 for which an FIR no.40/2019 was lodged. The said FIR is against one Aijaz Ahmad Bhat, who has allegedly joined militancy and there is absolutely no allegation in FIR against detenu and neither is it understand as to how detenu was implicated in the said FIR. The detenu was arrested after lodging FIR on the pretext that some person has given information to police that detenu knew the said person and provided him with food etc., which is absolutely false and was a malicious allegation by some rival villager. Even after lapse of six months, no challan was produced as nothing surfaced in investigation against detenu and finally the Trial Court granted default bail to detenu on 18.01.2020. These vital facts have not been at all considered in grounds of detention;

(iii) that the reason given for detention is that on 10.03.2020, some unknown persons hurled grenade at CRPF and during investigation it was found that detenu was involved. An open FIR was lodged and detenu was arrested as allegedly some person had named him without any basis and reason and that the police concerned, as usual, was quick in arresting detenu without verifying allegations or satisfying itself about involvement of detenu. There being absolutely no involvement of detenu and the police could not gather any evidence against him for months. The Trial Court finally bailed out detenu after challan was not filed within statutory period and same has not been filed even till date;

(iv) that detenu has not been served with any evidence gathered in investigation which would connect him with the alleged offences. As is evident, the FIRs do not show him to be accused and detaining authority has stated that connection of detenu has been found during investigation and, therefore, incriminating material was to be supplied to detenu, which has not been done inasmuch as he stood bailed out in the FIRs and there is no question of detaining him for same reason;

(v) that allegations/grounds of detention are vague and mere assertions of detaining authority, and no prudent man can make an effective representation against these allegations and can only be defended in a court of law and that detenu’s father has obtained these documents from respondents but same suffer from absolute non-application of mind. The grounds being vague, sketchy and ambiguous cannot be made reason for detention;

(vi) that detaining authority is bound under law to provide all material referred to in the order of detention and the order refers to two FIRs but neither the copy of same nor status of investigation or other information about the said FIRs has been given in grounds of detention and that detenu stood already bailed out and despite lapse of a year challan has not been filed in any of the two FIRs, which aspect has not been considered

(vii) that grounds of detention are mere repetition of contents of dossier, although same needs to be determined from