The detaining authority must apply an independent mind and consider all relevant material before issuing an order of detention.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order of detention bearing No. 06/PSA of 2022 dated 03.10.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been detained under Section 8(1)(a) of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (in short ‘Act’).

2. The petitioner has assailed the order of detention on the following grounds:-

(i) That the petitioner was provided a copy of detention order and FIRs only and no copy of dossier was given to the petitioner. The father of the petitioner moved an application with the respondent No. 2 to provide the copy of the dossier but the same was refused by the respondent No. 2.

(ii) That the petitioner was earlier detained vide order No. 11/PSA of 2017 dated 16.03.2017 and the same was quashed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2017. The detention order is absolutely silent about the same and the FIR Nos. 07/2011, 201/2014, 14/2015, 16/2016 and 141/2016 taken note of by the respondent No. 2 while issuing the order impugned, were also relied upon by the detaining authority at the time of issuance of earlier order of detention.

(iii) That the FIR No. 53/2019 under Section 341 and 506 RPC stands already compromised and the charge sheet arising out of FIR No. 125/2019 stands already dismissed as the petitioner was discharged by the court of learned Munsiff, Samba vide order dated 18.04.2022. FIR No. 239/2022 is still under investigation and the petitioner has been granted bail. The latest update of above mentioned three FIRs and the orders passed by the courts have not been brought to the notice of the detaining authority.

(iv) That the detaining authority has observed that it has gone through the dossier which clearly shows that the dossier has been reproduced or if any other material was sent to the detaining authority, it was not considered by the detaining authority. The allegations on the basis of which, the petitioner has been ordered to be detained do not fall within the purview of the activities considered prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such, the order of detention is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(v) That the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India were not adhered to, while passing the impugned order of detention.

3. Respondent No. 2 has filed the response, wherein it has been stated that as per the dossier forwarded by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba dated 03.10.2022, it was found that the petitioner was a notorious criminal, who had continuously involved himself in number of criminal activities and as such, he was a threat to the life and liberty of people of Samba District. The motive of the petitioner was not only to create terror among the peaceful and law abiding citizens of the town but also to form a big criminal gang by encouraging criminal minded people to join with the petitioner and commit criminal activities. Taking into consideration the illegal activities of the petitioner and the various FIRs registered against him, the petitioner was detained vide order No. 06/PSA of 2022 dated 03.10.2022. More so, the Government of J&K vide its order dated 03.11.2022 has confirmed the order of detention. It is further averred that as per execution report submitted by the respondent No. 3, the grounds of detention (09 leaves) and other documents (13 leaves) were provided to the petitioner and the grounds of detention were explained to him in Hindi, Urdu and Dogri language, which he understood fully. In acknowledgment thereof, he has signed the execution report on 06.10.2022. In nutshell, the stand of the respondent No. 2 is that all the procedural safeguards have been complied with by the respondent No. 2 while issuing and executing the order of detention.

4. Mr. Ankesh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of eight FIRs relied upon