The necessity of compelling reasons for preventive detention, awareness of detainee's existing custody, and prompt consideration of representations under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

JUDGMENT :

SINDHU SHARMA, J.

1. The present Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 03.12.2021 passed in WP (Crl) No. 28/2021 whereby the Habeas Corpus Petition of the appellant herein has been dismissed.

2. The appellant was detained by the District Magistrate, Jammu vide Order No. 04 of 2021 dated 05.05.2021 under Section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention of the appellant was ordered on the grounds that he was a history sheeter, hardcore criminal, habitual of indulging in acts of violence and he was involved in numerous criminal activities of serious and heinous nature and had spread a reign of terror in the area.

3. This order of detention was assailed by the appellant in a petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus amongst other on the grounds that:

(i) The appellant was already in custody in FIR No. 91 of 2021, at the time of passing of the order of detention and, therefore, it was necessary for the detaining authority to show awareness to this fact and to indicate compelling circumstances for passing the impugned order of detention.

(ii) The detaining authority has not considered the representation of the detenu seeking revocation of his detention.

(iii) The detenu was not provided the relevant material relied upon by the detaining authority to derive its subjective satisfaction with regard to the necessity of keeping the detenu in preventive detention.

(iv) The grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the dossier provided by the police authorities, as such, the detaining authority has not applied its mind to arrive at subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention.

(v) The order of detention suffers from non-application of mind and does not disclose any compelling circumstances requiring preventive detention of the appellant.

4. The respondents appeared before the writ court, filed their counter affidavit and produced the relevant record. It was averred that the detention of the detenu was justified on the grounds of his involvement in many criminal cases and on the basis of his activities as narrated in the dossier of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu. It was submitted that the detenu is a hardcore criminal who has created a terror in the area and his activities have caused harm to the peace and tranquility of the area and there is a constant threat to the maintenance of public order. The substantive law of the land was not sufficient in deterring the appellant from indulging into criminal acts as he was terrorizing people and community, therefore, the Detaining Authority was compelled by the activities of the appellant to pass the order on the basis of material provided to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu.

5. The writ Court considered the challenge of the appellant to the detention order and dismissed the petition on the ground that, material against the detenu as given in grounds of detention was sufficient to arrive at the satisfaction that it was necessary to put the detenu in preventive detention to restrain him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was also held that the grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity and all the constitutional safeguards, regarding furnishing of ground of detention, providing him all requisite material and informing him of his right of representation had been followed. The detenu had been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with Detaining Authority while passing detention order, in exercise of its powers under Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.

6. The appellant is aggrieved of the order of the writ court on the ground that the writ Court has erred in upholding the detention of the detenu. It is urged that the Detaining Authority was well aware of the fact that the detenu was already in custody at the time