1

WP(Crl.) No.62/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 16.03.2021

Pronounced on: 23.03.2022

WP(Crl.) No.62/2021

IRSHAD AHMAD GANIE

...PETITIONER(S)

Through: - Mr. M. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate

Vs.

UNION TERRITORY OF J&K & ORS.

…RESPONDENT(S)

Through: -Mr. Asif Maqbool, Dy. AG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1)

Challenge

in

this

petition

is

thrown

to

the

order No.14/DMP/PSA/21 dated 23.04.2021, issued by District

Magistrate, Pulwama (for brevity “Detaining Authority”) whereby Shri

Irshad Ahmad Ganie son of Ali Mohammad Ganie resident of Ganie

Mohalla Samboora Tehsil Pampore District Pulwama (for short

“detenue”) has been placed under preventive detention and directed to be

lodged in Central Jail, Jammu (Kotbhalwal).

2)

Petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed

the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind,

inasmuch as the grounds of detention are mere reproduction of the

dossier. It has been further contended that the Constitutional and

Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the

2

WP(Crl.) No.62/2021

instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations made against the

detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that the translated

version of the documents/grounds of detention has not been provided to

the detenue who is a semi- literate person. It has further been contended

that the petitioner has not been informed as to before which authority he

has to make a representation.

3)

The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the

averments made in the petition and stated that they have followed the

provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. It is contended that the detenue

has been detained only after following the due procedure; that the

grounds of detention were read over to the detenue; that there has been

proper application of mind for detaining the detenue and that the

detenue has been provided all the material. The learned counsel for the

respondents also produced the detention record to lend support to the

stand taken in the counter affidavit.

4)

I have heard learned counsel for parties and I have also gone

through detention record.

5)

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of

the impugned order, projected various grounds but the main grounds

that have prevailed during discussion are that the detenue has been

disabled from making an effective representation against his detention

as the material forming basis of the grounds of detention and that the

translated copies of grounds of detention have not been supplied to him.

6)

On perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel

3

WP(Crl.) No.62/2021

for the respondents, the ground regarding non-supply of relevant

material appears to have substance as there is nothing in the said record

to show that the whole of the relevant material has been supplied to the

detenue. The execution report in the record reveals that the detenue has

been supplied 04 leaves comprising notice of detention (one leaf)

grounds of detention (02 leaves) and detention order (one leaf). Thus, it

appears that the detenue has not been provided the copy of dossier and

the copy of the FIR No. 40/2021 for the offences u/s 147, 148, 149, 341

and 307 IPC of P/S Pampore, which form basis of the detention. This

goes on to support the contention of the petitioner that he has not been

supplied the relevant material. Obviously, the petitioner has been

hampered by non-supply of the relevant material in making an effective

representation against his detention before the concerned authority/

Advisory Board.

7)

Non-furnishing of relevant material forming basis of the grounds

of detention deprives a detenue of his Constitutional right to make a

representation against the order of detention. The denial of this

Constitutional r