Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
Royal Singh – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K & Ors. – Respondents
WP (Crl) No. 7/2022
Decided on : 16-12-2022
PREVENTIVE DETENTION - Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act - Section 8(1)(a), Section 13, Section 17(1), Section 18 - The court discussed the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, particularly Section 8(1)(a) which allows for preventive detention to maintain public order. The court emphasized the necessity of procedural safeguards under Section 13, which mandates the timely provision of grounds for detention to the detenue, and the role of the government in confirming the detention period under Sections 17(1) and 18. The court interpreted these provisions to ensure that the detaining authority must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances before issuing a detention order, and that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the need for public safety.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a detention order issued under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, claiming it was passed without proper consideration of facts and without providing necessary materials for an effective representation. The petitioner had a history of criminal charges and was previously convicted, but argued that the detention was based on false allegations and procedural violations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order was valid as it was based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the petitioner's potential threat to public order. The court held that the procedural requirements were met, and the petitioner was adequately informed of his rights and the grounds for his detention.
Issues: Whether the detention order was issued in violation of the procedural safeguards under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, and whether the detaining authority applied its mind to the facts before issuing the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that preventive detention is not punitive but preventive, aimed at averting future harm based on past conduct. It emphasized that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is paramount, and that procedural safeguards must be strictly adhered to, but the failure to provide grounds for representation does not invalidate the detention if the authority acted within its legal framework.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the detention order under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act.
JUDGMENT :
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
1. Through the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned detention order bearing No. 03-PSA of 2022, dated 12.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 (District Magistrate, Jammu), whereby the detenue, namely, Royal Singh @ Royal S/o Manjeet Singh R/o H.No. 354 Dalpatian Mohalla, Jammu has been placed in preventive detention under section 8(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, and detained the petitioner in Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.
2. It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned detention order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind. It is further been contended that the detention authority has passed the detention order on the basis of the criminal cases registered against the petitioner.
3. It is further pleaded by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have not supplied the grounds, copies of the FIRs, statement of witnesses or seizure memos, challan or any other material regarding the registration of the criminal cases against the petitioner.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 247/2009 filed under sections 307/34/323 RPC 3/25 Arms Act, registered with the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and the said offence under section 307 was converted into Section 302 and, as such, the petitioner was arrested in 2009 in the aforesaid FIR and the said criminal challan was pending before the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu.
5. It is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment vide judgment dated 10.08.2020 and against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed the appeal before this Court.
6. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed the bail application in the pending appeal before this Court and the bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 25.02.2021 was rejected by this Court.
7. It is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed a special leave to appeal bearing no. (CRL) No. 8432/2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by this Court and the Apex Court granted bail to the petitioner vide its order dated 06.01.2022 and the petitioner was, accordingly, directed to be enlarged on bail on the terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court.
8. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was released by the trial court in terms of the aforesaid order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
9. It is contended by Mr. K.S. Johal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the S.H.O. Police Station Peer Mitha, Jammu involved the petitioner in false case registered vide FIR No. 10/2022 under sections 339/382/109/34 IPC, 3/25 Arms Act only with the intention to detain the petitioner in the lockup.
10. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order dated 07.03.2022 subject to furnishing the bail bond and personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- each with the condition that that the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon daily and shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not influence the prosecution witnesses.
11. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 10.03.2022, the petitioner filed the bail application through his father to court of learned Sub-Judge Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and the court sought the report from the said Police Station and the police concerned submitted the report to the court that the petitioner is arrested in FIR No. 208/2018 under sections 382, 401, 120-B RPC, 66/IT Act, 3/25 Arms Act since 09.03.2022.
12. It is further pleaded that the petitioner (detenue) was falsely involv
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....
The detention order must be based on compelling reasons, and the detaining authority must supply all material forming the basis of the detention to enable effective representation. Failure to do so r....
Preventive detention orders must demonstrate awareness of the detenue's custody status and cannot conflate grounds of public order and security of the State; failure to do so invalidates the order.
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
