Back
SINDHU SHARMA
Reyaz Ahmad Dar – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SINDHU SHARMA, J.
1. The District Magistrate, Budgam detained the detenue-Reyaz Ahmad Dar under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 vide his office Order No. DMB/PSA/11 of 2021, dated 07.12.2021, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. This order of detention has been challenged by the detenue through his father-Ghulam Rasool Dar.
2. The order of detention has been assailed by the detenue on the grounds that: (i) the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and no prudent man can make a representation against the same; (ii) the detenue was already acquitted of the charges in FIR No. 167 of 2004 and FIR No. 216 of 2013 after facing trial but this important fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention which shows total non-application of mind; (iii) the detenue was placed under detention earlier vide order dated 19.03.2017 and 24.01.2019 and when these detention orders were quashed in the habeas corpus petitions (HCP No. 166/2017 and HCP No. 62/2019) filed by the detenue which were decided on 05.09.2017 and 04.07.2019. Thereafter, no such fresh activity has been alleged to the detenue t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fresh facts for passing a subsequent detention order and the need to provide all relevant material to the detenue for making an....
Fresh preventive detention order invalid if based substantially on grounds of previously quashed detention order; prior grounds cannot be considered even in part, requiring new fresh facts.
The detention order was invalidated due to non-application of mind, failure to provide material to the detenue, and violation of procedural requirements.
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....
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....
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate compelling reasons when a person is already in judicial custody; mere replication of police dossiers lacks legal validity.
It is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention.
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....
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
