AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) In terms of detention order No.04/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 12.04.2018, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla-respondent No.2 herein, Naseer
Ahmad Rather (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), has been taken into preventive custody and lodged in Central Jail, Kotbhulwal. By the instant
petition, quashing of the said order is sought.
2) The petitioner’s case, as set out in the petition, is that the detenue, firstly, without any justification and cause, was implicated in a criminal case,
where after detention order impugned was slapped upon him. The respondents are stated to 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 guaranteed Constitutional rights. Grounds of
detention are stated to be vague and unfounded.
3) The respondents despite repeated opportunities did not chose to file the counter affidavit.
4) In the detention order it is mentioned that “dossier and other connected documents†were relied upon by the detaining authority. Reference is
also made to a communication received from Senior Superintendent of Police, Baramulla, vide No.CS/PSA/2018/2198-2201 dated 09-04-2018.
Perusal of the detention record, however, reveals that none of the documents referred to in the detention order were ever supplied to the detenue. In
the grounds of detention various criminal cases registered against the detenue have been referred. The record does not indicate that the copies of
aforementioned FIRs, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C and other material collected in connection therewith were ever supplied to the
detenue. It needs no emphasis that the detenue cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India unless and until the material on which the detention is based, is supplied to the detenue. The failure on
the part of detaining authority to supply material renders detention order illegal and unsustainable. While holding so, I draw support from
DhananjoyDass v. District Magistrate (AIR 1982 SC 1315). Sophia Ghulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra and others (AIR 1999 SC 3051)
and ThahiraHaris Etc. Etc. v. Government of Karnataka &Ors. (AIR 2009 SC 2184).
5) Taking conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, petition is allowed, order No. 04/DMB/PSA/2018 dated 12.04.2018, is quashed. Further custody of
the detenue shall be governed by the orders as shall be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction relatable to the criminal cases registered against
the detenue.
6) Detention records, as produced, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.Â