The grounds of detention must be specific and must mention compelling circumstances justifying the detention, especially when the petitioner is already in judicial custody and has not applied for bail.

ORDER :

The present appeal has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of detention dated 10.04.2022 bearing no. 21/DMA/PSA/DET/2022 by which the petitioner was detained under the relevant provisions of the Public Safety Act.

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-3 at Page no. 17 which are the grounds of detention. Briefly, the ground of detention is that the petitioner underwent his religious training at a Dar-ul-Aloom Deoband and thereafter became an Imam at the local Mosque namely Jamia Masjid Hafia-Bazar, Khanabal. The order of detention describes the petitioner as an influential Orator who indulges in the hate-mongering and targeting the Security Forces by delivering speeches to misguide youth to attack and kill innocent persons and therefore, is a potential threat to the Security of the State. In paragraph-2 of the grounds, there is a specific allegation levelled against the petitioner that on 21.07.2021, he delivered a speech on Eid-ul-Azha prayer provoking people with the baseless allegation that the security forces are killing innocent people and damaging the property of people in unlawful encounters. On account of this speech the State filed case FIR No. 338/2021 under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,(UAPA) which provides for, punishment of unlawful activities and includes in its ambit and scope, advocacy, abetment or advice or incitement of any unlawful activity. The punishment provided therein is imprisonment up to a period of seven years, five years (as per sub-section 2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds are vague and do not provide an adequate opportunity for the petitioner to represent against the same. He further submits that the of FIRs in the grounds of detention are stale as the detention order has been passed after IX months of the registration of the said case. He further submits that the petitioner is an under trial and is in judicial custody in the aforementioned Police case. He further submits that till the date of the passing of the detention order, the petitioner has not moved an application for the grant of bail before the learned court below. This, he submits is on the basis of the instructions received from his client and believed to be true.

3. In opposition, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the ground of detention mentioned in paragraph-2 is precise giving the date and the activity of the petitioner which clearly reflect that the petitioner had an adequate opportunity to represent against the same by giving a viable reply. He further submits that the petitioner has never preferred a representation before the authorities and that the detention has been approved of by the Advisory Board, constituted under the provisions of the Public Safety Act. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure- A4 which is a representation that was made to the District Magistrate, Anantnag, on 02.05.2022, but the same has not been referred to or explained by the learned counsel for the State.

4. There is also one more grounds that is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and that is that the grounds of detention or the detention orders does not mention the compelling circumstances apprehended by the State so as to pass the order of detention while the petitioner was still in judicial custody.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with the petition.

6. As regards the grounds of detention being vague, this Court is of the opinion that the ground given in the paragraph-2 of the ground of detention is specific which relates to the petitioner having given an inflammatory speech on 21.07.2021, on account of which the FIR came to be registered against him. The said ground could have been viably answered by the petitioner and the same cannot be said to be vague in nature. However,