SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AIJAZ AHMAD MIR – Appellant
Versus
UT OF J AND K AND ORS HOME(State Government) – Respondent
WP(Crl) 618/2019



Advocates:
['HUSSIAN RASHID', '', 'HUSSAIN RASHID', 'B A TAK', 'ASIF MAQBOOL']

S.No.241

Supplimentary 1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

WP(Crl) No. 618/2019

Aijaz Ahmad Mir.

…Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Hussain Rashid, advocate.

V/s

Union Territory of JK and Others.

…Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Asif Maqbool, GA vice

Ms. Asifa Padroo, AAG.

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE.

ORDER

16.11.2021

1. In this petition, the petitioner has called in question his detention

through his brother Mohammad Shafi Mir, ordered by a district

Magistrate,

Baramulla,

vide

detention

order

no.79/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 30.10.2019.

2. From the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that the

petitioner was detained under Public Safety Act, with a view of

preventing him from acting in any manner, prejudicial to the

security of the State. The impugned order has been challenged by

the petitioner on a variety of grounds.

3. In response, the detaining authority has filed reply affidavit in

which the detention of the petitioner has been sought to be

justified on the ground of his persistent engagement in the

activities, prejudicial to the security of the State. From the reading

of the reply affidavit, it also comes out that pursuant to the

impugned order of detention, the detenue was detained on

02.11.2019, itself and was lodged in district jail, Srinagar.

4. If that be the position, the petitioner has already undergone

maximum period of detention i.e. two years prescribed under

Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, the order impugned has

thus, outlived its life and therefore, this petition has been rendered

infructuous and the same is accordingly, disposed of as such.

5. The respondents shall release the petitioner from preventive

custody forthwith, if not already released.

(SANJEEV KUMAR)

JUDGE

SRINAGAR

16 .11.2021

Shaista

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top