Back
SANJAY DHAR
Riyaz Ahmad Parray – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By medium of this petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order bearing No.12/DMB/PSA/2021 dated 18.10.2021, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla (the detaining authority) whereby one Riyaz Khaliq Parray S/O Abdul Khaliq Parray R/o Watergam Rafiabad Tehsil Watergam District Baramulla, has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order is, purportedly, passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
2. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on various grounds but the main grounds on which much stress has been laid during the course of arguments are:
(I) That previously the detenue was placed under preventive detention pursuant to detention order bearing No.85/DMB/PSA/2020 dated 17.02.2020. The said order has been quashed by this Court but without there being any fresh material or grounds, the impugned detention order has been passed by the detaining authority;
(II) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the detenue has al
Fresh grounds are necessary for passing a subsequent detention order after the earlier one has been quashed. Non-mentioning of important facts in the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of ....
Point of law : A person involved in a criminal case can be detained under the provisions of preventive detention laws provided there are compelling circumstances for doing so otherwise the order of d....
The requirement for fresh facts for a subsequent detention order and the need for a live link between alleged activities and the purpose of detention.
A detention order cannot be sustained if it relies on grounds that have previously been quashed, and the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' is critical in determining the legality....
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 orders must establish a live link between the detenu's activities and the necessity for detention; vague grounds and failure to disclose bail status invalidate such orders.
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)....
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....
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
