Advocates:
['NASEEM QADRI', '', 'SYED MUSAIB', 'B A DAR', '', 'SABA GULZAR']

1

S.No.01

Special suppl.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT SRINAGAR.

*******

WP (Crl) No.313/2019

CrlM No. 286/2021

Reserved on : 24. 03.2021

Pronounced on : 02.04.2021

Bashir Ahmad Bhat

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr.Syed Musaib, Advocate.

Vs

State of J&K & Anr.

…Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Saba Gulzar, Assisting Counsel to

Mr. B.A.Dar, Sr.AAG.

CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Judge

JUDGEMENT

01.

The petitioner through the medium of this petition filed

through his father, has questioned the detention order bearing

No.DMS/PSA/55/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the

District Magistrate, Srinagar ( respondent no.2 herein) by

virtue of which the petitioner has been detained in preventive

detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act,

1978 (for short hereinafter <Act=) in order to prevent him from

acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State

(now Union Territory).

02.

The present petition has been filed on the ground that the

petitioner was arrested by the security forces without any

2

justification and was detained under the order impugned. The

petitioner has assailed the order impugned on the ground inter-

alia that the grounds of detention on the basis of which the

petitioner has been detained, are vague and mere assertions of

detaining authority and no prudent man can make an effective

representation against these allegations made in the detention

order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner had already forwarded representation to the

Government but the same was not considered. He was already

in custody and being implicated in serious case, there was no

likelihood of detenue being granted bail in near future but the

same fact has not been mentioned in the detention order. It is

also submitted that the petitioner was not well informed

within what time he can make representation to the detaining

authority or to the Government and that the grounds of

detention were never explained to him in his language.

03.

Respondents have filed response in which it has been

stated that the petitioner was detained pursuant to the order of

detention impugned in the petition and all statutory

requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled

and complied with by the detaining authority. In compliance

to the detention order, warrant was accordingly executed by

the Executing Officer, ASI Mohammad Majnoon of Police

3

Station Rajbagh and the petitioner was handed over to the

Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar, for lodgment.

It is submitted that the contents of the detention order, warrant

and the grounds of detention, were read over and explained to

the petitioner in the language which he fully understood and

in lieu whereof the petitioner subscribed his signatures on the

execution report/order marked as Mark <A=. The petitioner

was well informed about his right of making representation

to the detaining authority or to Government against his

detention. The petitioner despite having received the aforesaid

entire material, has not chosen to make any representation

against his detention. Further, respondents have submitted that

in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the case of the petitioner

was referred to Advisory Board of the State for its opinion.

The Advisory Board, has opined that there is sufficient cause

for the detention of the petitioner. After the receipt of the

opinion of the Advisory Board, the Government vide order

No. Home/PB-V/1804 of 2