AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Detenue in connection with case registered as FIR No.216/2016 P/S Chadoora for commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 307,
120-B RPC, 7/25, 7/27 Arms Act had been arrested in the year 2013. He was ordered to be released on bail pursuant to the order of the Court
of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, dated 22.04.2017 but instead of releasing him, has been taken into preventive custody pursuant to order
No.DMB/PSA/12 dated 19.05.2017 so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue was in judicial custody from the year 2013 till 22.04.2017. He had not
been released. When he was in custody from 2013 till 19.05.2017, how could detaining authority say that preventive custody is necessary. When
for last four years detenue was in custody, there could be no scope or chance for him to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
Next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the concession of bail was granted in favour of the detenue by the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, on 22.04.2017, he was never released, instead was taken into preventive custody on 19.05.2017. Even
otherwise same position is supported by the fact that no activity attributable to the detenue is shown for the period 22.04.2017 to 19.05.2017.
How subjective satisfaction has been derived is not forthcoming and in case it would have been so, what prevented the respondent authorities in
not seeking cancellation of concession of bail as has been granted to him by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam. Was it not open for
them to apply before the said Court for cancellation of bail. Same has not been done, instead they have adopted the route of preventive custody
which in the stated circumstances was totally impermissible.
The initial period of six months of preventive custody has expired on 19th November, 2017. Whether thereafter it has been extended is not
brought to the notice of the Court.
Be that as it may. Otherwise also, order of detention, for the stated reasons, is unsustainable, as such, quashed. The detenue be released from
the preventive custody if not required in connection with any other case.
Detention records as produced be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.
Disposed of as above.