Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
SYED SHABIR AHMED SHAH TH NAZNEENA AKHTAR – Appellant
Versus
U T OF J AND K TH FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HOME AND OTHERS – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
01. The petitioner has challenged the detention order No. PSA 28 of 2023 dated 15.11.2023, issued by the District Magistrate, Jammu, placing him under detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner through his wife-Mst. Nazneena Akhtar.
02. The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order of detention has been passed without any application of mind, as the allegations made in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the petitioner, as the same have been made in order to justify the illegal detention of the petitioner. The petitioner was earlier detained in pursuance of detention order No. 7/PSA of 2016, dated 24.05.2016 based on a dossier submitted by respondent No. 3. All five complaints mentioned in the detention order dated 15.11.2023 were also part of the earlier detention order, however, the respondents relied on the same complaints while issuing the impugned detention order dated 15.11.2023. The grounds of detention are verbatim of the dossier submitted by SSP, Jammu, and the detention order has been passed without any subjective
Detention orders must consider all relevant facts, including bail status; failure to do so renders the order invalid.
The detaining authority must demonstrate awareness of all relevant facts before issuing a preventive detention order; failure to do so constitutes non-application of mind, rendering the order invalid....
Preventive detention orders must provide all relevant material to the detenue for effective representation; failure to do so renders the order illegal.
Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's bail status and communicate grounds in a language understood by the detenu, failing which the order is invalid.
Preventive detention is invalid if the individual is already in custody for a substantive offense, emphasizing the necessity for compelling reasons and proper application of mind by the detaining aut....
Preventive detention orders must have a clear nexus with the alleged activities of the detenue, and the detaining authority must demonstrate application of mind in framing the grounds.
The failure to inform the detaining authority of the rejection of the bail application constituted a significant procedural flaw, invalidating the detention order.
Preventive detention orders must provide specific grounds for effective representation; similarity in language does not imply non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
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
