h475

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on : 21.09.2022

Pronounced on : 18.10.2022

Tawheed Ahmad Zargar

...Petitioner(s)

Through:- Mr. Shjah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate.

V/s

UT of J&K and others

...Respondent(s)

Through:- Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved of and has challenged the order of his

detention bearing No. DMS/PSA/113/2021 dated 25.01.2022 issued by

District Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby the petitioner has been placed under

preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2.

The impugned order of detention has been passed on the basis of the

activities elaborately narrated in the grounds of detention. As is indicated in

the grounds of detention, the petitioner was booked in case FIR No.

65/2019 under Section 363, 376 and 109 RPC registered in Police Station

Parimpora and was also arrested. It is submitted that after few months, the

petitioner was enlarged on bail by the competent Court of law. The

WP(Crl) No.97/2022

2 WP(Crl) No.14/2022

petitioner, after coming out on bail, did not shun his illegal activities and

indulged in luring the youth of the locality to fall in drug addiction. For his

activities the petitioner was again booked in FIR No. 154/2021 under

Sections 341, 307 and 506 IPC registered in Police Station Nigeen. On the

basis of these two FIRs and the illegal activities of the petitioner reported

by the Police, the District Magistrate, Srinagar, passed the impugned order

of detention to prevent the petitioner from acting in the activities

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

3.

The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the

petitioner on the ground that the activities of the petitioner indicated in the

grounds of detention could only be a law and order problem and do not, in

any manner, affect or disrupt the normal life of the community. It is

submitted that in the two FIRs registered against the petitioner, the

competent Court of law has already granted bail to the petitioner and it is

not the case of the respondents that after having been released on bail in the

FIR No. 154/2021, the petitioner has indulged in any activities prejudicial

to the maintenance of public order. It is also the contention of the petitioner

that though the petitioner had been released in both the FIRs, yet the

Detaining Authority has not shown its awareness with respect to the

petitioner having been released on bail in FIR No. 154/2021. In short, the

primary ground of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the activities attributed to the petitioner, which are also subject

matter of investigation in two FIRs, may pose the law and order problem

3 WP(Crl) No.14/2022

but the same cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be prejudicial

to the maintenance of public order.

4.

Respondents have filed the reply affidavit of the District Magistrate.

The plea of the petitioner is contested primarily on the ground that

consistent and persistent unlawful activities of the petitioner have given

sense of insecurity to the people of the locality and has created a serious

problem in maintenance of public order. The petitioner is an incorrigible

criminal and has been indulging in criminal activities over a period of time

which has affected the community at large and, therefore, his activities

have been found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

5.

Ha