HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on: 21.07.2022

Pronounced on: 05.08.2022

LPA No. 4/2022(O&M)

Gaggu Din alias Gaggu

...Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through :-

Mr. M. R. Quershi, Advocate with

Mr. Haroon Rashid Quershi, Advocate

v/s

<

Union Territory of J&K and others

.....Respondent (s)

't

Through :-

Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy.AG

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Per Oswal-J

1.

The appellant had challenged the order of detention No. PSA/08 dated

10.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 under the provisions of section

8(1) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short the

Act) by way of a writ petition bearing WP(Crl) No. 53/2021 and the

learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 17.12.2021 dismissed the said

writ petition.

2.

Through this intra-court appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment

dated 17.12.2021 on the ground that the learned Single Judge has not

appreciated the contention of the appellant that the order of detention dated

10.08.2021 was passed in a mechanical manner and procedural safeguards

as required, were not complied with by the respondents while passing the

2 LPA No. 4/2022

order of detention. The appellant has further contended that the grounds of

detention are based upon the FIRs registered from the year, 2014 till 2021

and the alleged offences stated in these FIRs did not make out any case for

issuance of order of detention against the appellant so as to prevent him

from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public

order.

3.

Mr. M. R. Quershi, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued

that in FIR bearing No. 27/2014 for commission of offences under sections

379 and 411 IPC registered with Police Station, Narote, District Pathankot

and in FIR No. 7/2017 for commission of offence under section 188 RPC

and 4 /8 Cow Slaughtering Act, 11 PCA Act registered with Police Station,

Narote, Pathankot, the appellant stands already acquitted by the courts. He

laid much stress that the procedural as well as constitutional safeguards

have not been followed by the respondents while issuing the order of

detention. Mr. Qureshi emphatically submitted that the SSP did not apprise

the appellant about the documents relied upon by the respondent No.2 in a

language which the appellant understood as he does not understand

English, Urdu or Punjabi as a result of which the appellant was deprived of

his right of making effective representation against the detention order.

4.

Per contra, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, learned Dy. AG for the respondents

vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has passed the judgment

impugned well within the parameters of the law as the appellant was

having a criminal bent of mind and had not mended himself, therefore, no

option was left with the respondent No. 2 but to issue the order of

detention.

5.

Heard and perused the record.

3 LPA No. 4/2022

6.

A perusal of the record reveals that vide detention order No. PSA/08 dated

10.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2, the appellant was ordered to be

detained under the Act. In the order of detention, six FIRs are stated to

have been registered against the appellant. FIR No. 27/2014 for

commission of offences under sections 379 and 411 IPC was registered

with Police Station, Narote, District Pathankot, FIR No. 7/2017 for

commission of offences under section 188 RPC and 4 /8 Cow Slaughtering

Act, 11 PCA Act was registered with Police Station, Narote, Pathankot,

FIR No. 254/2018 for commission of offences under sections 341, 307,

336, 323, 147, 148 RPC and 3/27