The detention order can be quashed if it is based on vague grounds and executed with unexplained delay. The State must follow the procedure under Section 12 of the J&K Public Safety Act if the detainee is assumed to be absconding.

ORDER :

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved by the order of detention issued by the respondent no.2 dated 17.12.2018, vide order no. 147/DMS/PSA/2018. By the said order of detention, the petitioner was taken into custody after the passage of four years on 13.11.2022 when it was executed.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire proceeding against him is based upon stale procedures which were initiated in December 2018. The first contention is that the order of detention and the grounds of detention are vague. The grounds of detention has been gone through by this Court. Briefly stated, the order of detention reflects that the petitioner who is resident of village Meemindar, Shopian, left schooling after the ninth class and was working as an electrician. Thereafter, the grounds reflect that he fell mechanisations of secessionists who espoused the cause of cessation of the J&K State from the Union of India and that he supported the militants and developed such qualities “which later on proved detrimental to the peace and stability in the district”. It is also alleged in the grounds of detention that he developed contacts with one Shakeel Ahmad Thoker an activist of Hurriyat and other OGW’s like Riyaz Ahmad Ganie, Mohammad Shafi Shaikh of Shopian and used to chalk out Strategies and formulate plans to inflict maximum damage to security forces and police. He is also alleged to have developed contacts with dreaded militants namely Zeenat-ul-Islam, Naikoo, Showkat Ahmad, Waseem Ahmad and others who were operators in district Shopian and provided them every possible logistic support. It is also alleged that he has associates like Mohammad Shafi Shaikh and Riyaz Ahmad Ganie and constructed a safe hide out to be used by militants.

2. He is also alleged to be a vociferous supporter of secessionist ideology and that he was instrumental in arranging hordes of youth of district Shopian and abetted them to resort to Stone Pelting and how freedom from India can be brought about by violent means. It is also alleged that he is a staunch and hardcore stone pelter. The grounds of detention also gives the reference of six FIRs, all of the year 2018. All these cases relate to stone pelting, in which the involvement of the petitioner is alleged. The grounds of detention and the order of detention obviously cannot give any reasons behind the delay in execution. However, the execution report of 13.11.2022, has also been seen by this Court. There is not even one word in the execution report with regard to the delay in executing the order of detention dated 07.12.2018, on 13.11.2020. Even on the receipt of the grounds of detention, there is no reason given with regard to the delay. The approval of the detention order by the Government vide order dated 20.12.2018, is scandalous to say the least. The fourth paragraph of the order approving the detention order of the petitioner dated 17.12.2018 reads as follows:

“Whereas, the detenue has also been endorsed a copy of the grounds of detention relied upon by the detaining authority to enable him to make a representation against his detention order as provided under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978”.

3. The petitioner was only taken into detention on 13.11.2022 as per the execution order. Under the circumstances, it is unthinkable how he could have endorsed the copy of the detention order to enable him to make a representation even before he was taken into detention.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, while vehemently opposing the petition for quashment of the impugned order, has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed by the State with specific reference to the reply to ground(d) of the petition on internal Page-7 of the reply which reads as follows:

“In reply to Para (d), it is submitted that the petitioner has been evading his arrest after the order of detention came to be passed against him. It is further submitted that hectic efforts w