ORDER(ORAL)

01.07.2024

1. The present petition in the form of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner who is aggrieved of the order of detention dated 09.11.2023 by which he has been placed under preventive detention under the relevant provisions of the Public Safety Act. In all, nine cases have been listed and considered in the grounds of detention. Earlier, the petitioner was taken into detention vide order dated 07.07.2020 which was quashed by a learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.03.2022 passed in WP(Crl) No. 67/2021. In that case, the first seven cases in the present order of detention and the grounds of detention have been considered and the detention order was quashed. This is undisputed.

2. In the present order of detention, in addition to the seven cases considered earlier by this Court, two new cases have been added which are FIR 82/2023 and FIR 83/2023. Both these FIRs were registered at Police Station Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu and both were registered on 04.09.2023. Both these FIRs originate on account of an inter-personal dispute between the petitioner and the complainant in that case. The FIRs have been registered pursuant to a property dispute as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. FIR. 82/2023 is registered under Sections 341, 332, 504, 34 IPC which are all bailable offences. The facts in those case show that the offence was committed between 2 to 2.30pm on 04.09.2023 where the complainant who is one Shabnam Akhter has made allegations against the petitioner and also his wife of threatening the complainant and her children with dire consequences. The second FIR was also registered on 04.09.2023 where the same complainant Shabnam Akhter states that she was traveling in a vehicle which was dashed against by a vehicle driven by the petitioner herein. The second FIR which is 83/2023 besides having same sections of FIR No. 82/2023, additionally has Section 307 IPC. Both these FIRs which have been registered, disclose inter-personal offences between the petitioner and the complainant party and does not reflect how the same is any danger to public order.

3. Learned counsel for the Union Territory of J&K has submitted that the last two FIRs ought not to be seen an isolation but the same must be seen as a continuation of the seven earlier FIRs which reflect that the petitioner is a recidivist, indulging in Crime from 2015 till 2023 and that in all nine FIRs have been registered against him. However, as already stated hereinabove, the previous seven FIRs have already been considered by this Court in earlier writ petition and the same notwithstanding the order of detention was quashed. The only difference is the last two FIRs of the year 2023 of Police Station Bagh-e-Bahu, Jammu which again, as stated hereinabove disclose an inter personal offence between the petitioner and the complainant in that case and the same does not reflect as to how the petitioner is a danger to the maintenance of public order on account of those two cases.

4. Under the circumstances, the reasoning given in the grounds of detention does not reflect application of mind and has been passed in a mechanical manner by taking into consideration the seven previous cases which were already considered by this Court while quashing the earlier order of detention of the year 2020. Therefore, for the reasons already stated hereinabove, the impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be setforth at liberty. 5. The petition stands disposed of.

(Atul Sreedharan)

Judge

Jammu

01.07.2024

Vijay