The detaining authority is required to communicate to the detenue all the material forming the basis of the grounds of detention and must not suffer from non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

JUDGMENT

1. Impugned in this petition is the detention order No.DMS/PSA/ 131/2021 dated 28.02.2022, issued by District Magistrate, Srinagar (for brevity 'Detaining Authority') is sought. In terms of the aforesaid order, Ishfaq Ahmad Ganaie @ Aqib Puj son of Ghulam Mohammad Ganaie resident of Chadoora Budgam (for short 'detenu') has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar.

2. The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind and the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has been further urged that the material which formed basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been provided to the detenue.

3. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the Security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to the detenue. That the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit and that all the constitutional and procedural safeguards have been strictly followed while issuing the impugned order. The respondents have produced the detention record in order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the detention record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments was on the following grounds:

(I) That the detenue's right of making an effective representation against his detention has been violated as the material, on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated, has not been supplied to him;

(II) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the detenue had already been admitted to bail in FIR No.11/2022 of P/S Shergari but this fact has nowhere been mentioned in the grounds of detention;

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has made an attempt to justify the passing of the order impugned by contending that the detenue was a habitual criminal, inasmuch as there were various FIRs pending against him and on this basis, the Detaining Authority was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of detention as there was every likelihood of the detenue indulging in similar activities. It has been further contended that all the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority were, provided to the detenue and in token of having received the same, the detenue has signed the receipt. It is also urged that the contents of the documents were read over and explained to the detenue in the language understood by him.

7. The first ground projected by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue has been disabled from making an effective representation against the order of detention as whole of the material, which formed basis of the grounds of detention, has not been furnished to him. This ground appears to have substance. A perusal of the detention record reveals that the petitioner has been provided eight leaves comprising of copy of detention warrant, notice, grounds of detention and FIR. The fact that only eight leaves have been furnished to the detenue shows that not only the copy of the dossier but even the copies of the statements of the witnesses etc. recorded during investigation of FIR Nos.89/2019, 11/2022 and 112/2021, mention whereof is made in the grounds of detention, have not been provided to the detenue. It was incumbent upon respondents to furnish not only the copies of these FIRs but also the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation of these FIRs and other material on the basis