IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M.A. Chowdhary, J.
Manzoor Ahmad Hurra - Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of J&K & Anr. – Respondents
WP(Crl) No. 592 of 2022
Decided On : 21-07-2023
Detention Order - Preventive Custody - J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, Section-8 - Summary of Acts and Sections: J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, Section-8 - The court discussed the preventive nature of the Act and the grounds for preventive detention, emphasizing the aim to prevent a person from pursuing anti-national/anti-social activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The court highlighted the detenue's involvement in criminal/anti-national activities and the necessity of preventive measures to protect society.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the detention order of the detenue under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, alleging lack of justification, fabricated allegations, and deprivation of the detenue's rights. The respondent contended that the detenue's activities posed a threat to the security of the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the detenue's involvement in anti-national activities, including providing support to a terrorist outfit and motivating youth for terror-related activities. The court emphasized the preventive nature of detention under the Act and upheld the detention order.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the detention order, the detenue's rights, and the necessity of preventive measures to curb anti-national activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the preventive nature of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, and the detenue's involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of the State to uphold the detention order.
Final Decision: The petition was found devoid of merit and dismissed, upholding the detention order under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
JUDGMENT :
1. Detention Order No. DMB/PSA/28 of 2022 dated 27.06.2022 (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by District Magistrate, Budgamrespondent No.2, whereby the petitioner namely Manzoor Ahmad Hurra S/O Ali Mohammad Hurra R/O Nowhar Chara-e-Sharief Budgam (for short ‘detenue’) has been ordered to be detained under preventive custody in terms of Section-8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State, has been questioned/challenged on the grounds taken in the instant petition.
2. Case set up by the petitioner is that the detenue, in terms of the impugned order, has been detained under the Act, without any justification and the allegations leveled in terms of the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. Furthermore, it is pleaded that the order of detention has not executed in tune with the Act and the directions of the Detaining authority, which in turn had deprived the detenue from making an effective and meaningful representation against his detention. Another plea of the detenue is that he has not been provided the relevant material/documents relied upon by the Detaining authority. The detenue, post execution, has not been informed that he can make a representation before the Detaining authority, therefore, a valuable right of the detenue stands defeated. It is pleaded that the detention order is based on a single alleged activity and there is no past criminal record of the detenue, as such, the detention is unreasonable and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. Non-supply of translated copies of relevant documents as well as non-explanation of the documents/material in the language known to the detenue has made the detention illegal and unconstitutional.
3. Pursuant to notice, reply affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2, vehemently, resisting the petition. It is contended that detaining a person under the provisions of Public Safety Act is always preventive in nature and its sole aim is to prevent a person from pursuing antinational/ anti-social activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of security of State, etc. In the instant case there is enough material against the detenue which is highly suggestive of the fact that the normal law of the land is not sufficient to prevent him from continuing with his anti-national activities and, it is evident that the detenue is highly motivated and is not likely to desist from anti-national and unlawful activities.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The detention record, on its perusal, would indicate that the detenue was working as OGW with Lashker-I-Toiba terrorist outfit and was providing shelter, logistic support to the active terrorists of LeT outfit in the jurisdiction of Police Station Chrai-I-Sharief in order to promote terrorism and remained in touch with active terrorists of LeT outfit. The record further reveals that the detenue has been motivating the youth of the area for anti-national activities by luring them for terror related activities, as well as, for stone pelting in the area. The aim of the detenue, as mentioned in the detention order, is to ensure that such objectives are accomplished and for this end he resorted to such activities which have the effect of causing widespread disturbance and instability and also posing threat to the security of the State.
6. On 21.09.2020, on a specific information, cordon and search operation (CASO) was launched at Nowhar Chari-I-Sharief during which JeM outfit terrorists hiding in the house of the detenue, fired indiscriminately upon searching party, triggering an encounter and on retaliation by the police and security forces, one terrorist got neutralized and one Sepoy of 53 RR got injured.
The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya
Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the preventive nature of the detention under the Public Safety Act, aimed at preventing anti-social and subversive elements from endangering the se....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 is justified based on the detenue's past conduct and likelihood to enga....
Preventive detention upheld validating detaining authority's subjective satisfaction from material on continued anti-national activities prejudicial to state security; courts do not substitute views ....
Preventive detention upheld where detaining authority's subjective satisfaction rationally based on material indicating prejudicial activities to state security; courts cannot substitute view or ques....
Object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive, but is only preventive.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.