IMPORTANT POINT
A detention order under preventive detention laws must demonstrate compelling reasons for detaining an individual already in custody, and failure to provide relevant materials for representation violates constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the detenu, Javaid Ahmad Najar, through his brother, Manzoor Ahmad Najar, against the judgment and order dated 03.02.2022, delivered by a Single Bench of this Court in WP(Crl.) No. 91/2021 in which the detention order No. DMS/PSA/26/2021 dated 24.06.2021, issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, was challenged. By virtue of the said detention order, the appellant/detenu was placed under preventive detention in exercise of powers under section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. The said appellant/detenu was ordered to be lodged at Central Jail, Srinagar.

2. Mr. M.A. Qayoom, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the learned Writ Court, while passing the impugned Judgment, has not appreciated the legal position governing the subject in its true and correct perspective and in tune with the facts of the case. While reiterating the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, the learned Counsel submitted that the detention Order was, primarily, bad in law on the ground that there was no compelling circumstance for the detaining authority to pass the impugned Order of detention when the detenu was already in custody in FIR 73/2019 registered in Police Station, Soura, for the commission of offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 353 and 307 RPC 13 ULA(P) Act. It is pleaded that the learned Writ Court has brushed aside the aforesaid important aspect of the matter urged by the Appellant in the Writ Petition seeking quashing of the impugned detention Order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and has dismissed the Petition filed by the petitioner (therein).

3. Mr. Sajjad Ashraf Mir, the learned Government Advocate, representing the Respondents, has vehemently supported the impugned Judgment passed by the learned Writ Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised primarily three issues before the Court questioning the validity of the detention. The first point taken by the learned counsel for the appellant/detenu is that the detention order was passed while the detenu was already in custody in the aforesaid FIR. In these circumstances, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/detenu, the detaining authority ought to have satisfied himself with the fact that there was imminent likelihood of release of the detenu in the case and that it was necessary to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-detenu, there is no such satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Surya Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors., 1994 SCC (Cri) 1691" to submit that since the said satisfaction was not recorded, the detention order was vitiated.

5. The second point taken by the learned counsel for the appellant was that non-supply of relevant material/documents also vitiated the detention order. In this context, it was the case of the appellant that no documents at all were supplied to the appellant/detenu. The non-supply of relevant documents seriously undermines the capacity of a detenu to make an effective representation against the detention and that in itself would be a ground to declare the detention void. This right flows from the Constitution of India. In support, he referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1999 SC 3051".

6. The third point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-detenu was based on vagueness in grounds of detention.

7. The learned counsel for appellant (detenu) further submits that the detenu has not been provided the material referred to in the grounds of detention resultantly the right of making effective representation against the impugned order of detention, as enshrined under Article 22(3) of the Constitution, has been violated.

8. On the other