Back
ATUL SREEDHARAN, MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI
Mohd Younis Mir S/o Mohd Ramzan Mir – Appellant
Versus
UT of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This Letters Patent Appeal, has been filed by the appellant/detenu who is aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (Crl) No. 297/2022 whereby, the habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant, challenging the order of detention dated 07.04.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Budgam (Respondent No. 2), by which the appellant was taken into preventive detention under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the act”) was dismissed.
FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The detenu is in preventive detention under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PSA’) inter-alia that he is a threat to security of the state. The order of detention follows the registration of an FIR against him, being FIR No. 219/2021 of Police Station, Budgam, which include offences under several provisions of the UAPA. Allegations in the FIR reflect that upon receiving information about the activities of the appellant/detenu with anti-national elements, the Rashtriya Rifles, along with the police, raided the village where the appellant was livi
The detention order must be based on justifiable reasons and cannot be arbitrary, violating the constitutional rights of the individual.
Preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act requires the detaining authority to provide grounds for detention and adhere to procedural safeguards, but the subjective satisfacti....
Object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive, but is only preventive.
The detention under the J&K Public Safety Act can be invalidated if the detaining authority fails to provide essential material to the detainee for making an effective representation, and if the alle....
The judgment established the importance of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing a detention order, the limited scope of scrutiny under Article 226, and the distinction betwee....
Detention - Not for the court to sit in the place of the Government and try to determine if it would have come to the same conclusion as the Government.
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
