Preventive detention orders must be based on current and relevant incidents, and failure to supply necessary materials to the detenue renders the order illegal.

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus for quashing the detention order bearing No.DMS/PSA/25/2023 dated 12.04.2023, passed by District Magistrate, Srinagar (the detaining authority) with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The order is, purportedly, passed by the detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (the Act of 1978).

2) The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner, inter alia on the following grounds:

(I) That whole of the material on the basis of which impugned detention order has been passed has not been supplied to the detenue thereby disabling him from making an effective representation against his detention.

(II) That the impugned order of detention is based upon stale incidents having no proximate link to the activities alleged to be prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State.

(III) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as the detenue has already been admitted to bail in FIR No.51/2017 registered with P/S Nowhatta, but this fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of detention.

3) On being put to notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their reply affidavit, wherein besides other contentions, it is submitted that detention was necessitated because of involvement of the detenue in very serious offences against the State as mentioned in the FIRs registered against him. The detenue was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as the to detaining authority against his detention. It is further contended that all statutory requirements and constitutional imperatives have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. That the order has been issued validly and legally. The respondents have placed reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court including Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B (1975) 3 SCC 198. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5) So far as the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents reveals that the material is stated to have been received by the petitioner on 26.04.2023. Report of the Executing Officer in this regard forms part of the detention record, a perusal whereof reveals that it bears the signature of the petitioner and according to it, copy of detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (Nil), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related relevant documents (03 leaves), total 08 leaves, have been supplied to him.

6) If we have a look at the grounds of detention, it bears reference to as many as three FIRs viz. FIR Nos.51/2017, FIR No.52/2017 of P/S Nowhatta and 19/2019 registered at P/S Rainawari. It was incumbent upon the respondents to furnish not only copies of the FIRs but also the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation of the said FIRs and other material on the basis of which petitioner’s involvement therein is shown. All this material would run in dozens of pages and it is impossible that all this material would be covered in only three leaves. Thus, contention of the petitioner that whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority, while framing the ground