HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

…

WP (Crl) No.252/2021

Reserved on: 07.05.2021

Pronounced on: 11.05.2021

Bariq Arsalan

……. Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate

Vs.

UT of J&K and anr.

..…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. M. A. Chashoo, AAG

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1.

Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for

quashment of Order no.42/DMA/PSA/DET/2021 dated 19.10.2021, passed

by District Magistrate, Anantnag, whereby detenu, namely, Bariq Arsalan

S/o Gull Mohammad Dar R/o Nai Basti Anantnag has been placed under

preventive detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in the

activities which are prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory, on the

grounds made mention of therein. The impugned order has been passed by

the detaining authority on the basis of material supplied by Senior

Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, vide his communication No.

Pros/Det/2021/ 13892-96 dated 19.10.2021.

2.

Learned counsel for the 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 vague, indefinite, non-

existent on which no prudent man can make an effective representation

against such allegations. It is further contended that the Constitutional and

Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant

case. It is urged that there has been non-application of mind on the part of

detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order, inasmuch

as the detenu was already admitted to bail in the FIR which fact has not

been mentioned in the grounds of detention. He has also vehemently argued

that grounds of detention are replica of dossier and unequivocally reflects

and shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority.

2

WP (Crl) no.252/2021

3.

Respondents have filed counter affidavit, insisting therein that the activities

indulged in by detenu are highly prejudicial to the security of the Union

Territory. The activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been

reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments

that detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the

grounds of detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant

material, which has been relied upon by the detaining authority, was

provided to the detenu at the time of execution of warrant.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have gone through the

detention record produced by counsel for respondents and considered

the matter.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the

impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the

course of arguments was on the following grounds:

(I)

There has been non application of mind on the part of the detaining

authority as the detenu has already been admitted to bail in FIR

No.132/2019 for offences under Section 16, 18, 20 of ULAP Act

P/S Anantnag but this fact has not been mentioned in the grounds of

detention.

(II)

That although a representation was also submitted against the

detention by the detenu through his brother before the respondents

yet the same was not considered rendering the detention order

unsustainable in law.

(III)

That the grounds of detention are replica of dossier which

unequivocally reflects and shows non-application of mind on the

part of detaining authority.

6.

It has been contended that the impugned detention order suffers from non-

application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, inasmuch as the

grounds of detention do not bear any reference to the fact that the detenu

had been ad