Advocates:
['M/S MIR SHAFKAT HUSSAIN', '', 'M Y LONE', 'SAAD RAFIQ GANIE']

HCP No187/2018 Page 1 of 5

Serial No.02 Daily

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT SRINAGAR

HCP No.187/2018

Date of decision:22.11.2018

Reyaz Ahmad Ahangar

v.

State of J&K and anr.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rashid Ali Dar, Judge.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner(s):

Mr. M. Y. Lone, Adv.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Saad Rafi Ganai, AAG.

i)

Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii)

Whether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

1)

Challenge in this petition is to the order of detention bearing No.DMB/

PSA/10 of 2018 dated 18.07.2018. In terms of said order, Reyaz Ahmad Ahangar

(hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been taken into preventive custody while

invoking powers under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act and so has been

lodged in District Jail, Kathua.

2)

The petitioner’s case, as set out in the petition, is that the detenue, without any

justification and cause was arrested on 02.06.2018 and while in custody, he has been

ordered to detained in preventive custody pursuant to impugned detention order. The

respondents are stated to have violated the procedural safeguards and have ignored

to provide material relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the

impugned order of detention and thus deprived the detenue of his Constitutional and

Statutory rights. Grounds of detention are stated to be vague, baseless, non-existent

and unfounded and there is non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority

while passing the impugned detention order.

HCP No187/2018 Page 2 of 5

3)

The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made

in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the

security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention

were handed over to the detenue and same were read over and explained to him. The

grounds taken by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and

without any merit. The learned counsel for the respondents has made available

detention records to lend support to the case set up in the counter affidavit.

4)

The records, as produced, carries copy of execution report dated 22.07.2018

which suggests that only copy of detention warrant and grounds of detention (06)

leaves have been supplied to the detenue, which means entire material forming base

of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the detenue. When it is so,

detenue has been disabled from making an effective representation which, in fact, is

an infraction of valuable right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of <Sophia Gulam

Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra &ors= (AIR 1999 SC 3051), has held as

under

<The right to be communicated the grounds of detention flows from

Article 22(5) while the right to be supplied all the material on which

the grounds are based flows from the right given to the detenue to

make a representation against the order of detention. A

representation can be made and the order of detention can be assailed

only when all the grounds on which the order is based are

communicated to the detenue and the material on which those

grounds are based are also disclosed and copies thereof are supplied

to the person detained, in his own language.=

5)

In <Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat, (1982) S SCC 440, the

Hon’ble Apex Court, while relying on its earlier judgment Khudiram Das v.

State of W.B, (1975) 2 SCR 81; Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India,

(1980) 4 SCC 531; Shalini Son