Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, SINDHU SHARMA
Yudhvir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
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:
(ii
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....
Point of Law : When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, authority making order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person ....
Preventive detention is invalid if the individual is already in custody for a substantive offense, emphasizing the necessity for compelling reasons and proper application of mind by the detaining aut....
The detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act requires compelling reasons, and the detenu has a constitutional right to make a representation against his detention under Article 22(5) o....
The right to make representation against detention is a fundamental right, and preventive detention should not be exercised without compelling reasons when the individual is already in custody.
Preventive detention requires compelling reasons when the individual is already in custody; failure to consider representation against detention violates constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5)....
Detention order - detenu did not know English, while the grounds of detention were drawn up in English and an affidavit filed on behalf of the detaining authority stated that while serving the ground....
The detention order must provide compelling reasons for the detention, and the grounds of detention should not be a verbatim copy of the police dossier. Additionally, the detaining authority must con....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
