Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar vs Union Territory Of J&K And Anr on 24 December, 2024
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP No.09/2023
Reserved on: 12.12.2024
Pronounced on: 24.12.2024
Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar
.........Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate
Versus
Union Territory of J&K and anr
............Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh. Dy. AG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
1. Through the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashment
of detention Order No.01/DMK/PSA/2023 dated 22.06.2023, passed by District
Magistrate, Kulgam, whereby detenu, namely, Imtiyaz Ahmad Dar S/o Mohammad
Yoqoub Dar R/o RedwaniPayeen District Kulgam, has been placed under
preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of State, and directing his
lodgement in Central Jail, Srinagar,on the following grounds:-
i) that detenu was earlier detained in 2022 vide Order No.04/DMK/PSA/2022
dated 29.93.2022 on the basis of his alleged involvement in FIR Nos.35/2018 &
67/2018. He challenged it in WP(Crl) No.187/2022. The said detention order was
quashed vide judgement dated 29.03.2023, but instead of releasing detenu, he has
been detained him by virtue of impugned order on the same and similar grounds.It
is stated that detenu is neither involved in any fresh FIR nor in any fresh prejudicial
activity, as such, impugned detention order is in violation of Article 22(5) of
Constitution of India and deserves to the quashed;detaining authority has passed the
impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind;
ii) that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague and non-
existent and detaining authority has not followed constitutional and statutory
procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of
India;
iii) that the detenu has never associated himself with any terrorist
organization and has also no connection with any terrorist organization and he
has never acted on the directions and signals of any persons whether inside or
outside the Union Territory and that the detenu has never provided any logistic
support or transported any arms of any person from one place to another and the
Page 1
HCP no.09/2023
detenu is not an OGW and is not in touch with any organization.
iv) that the allegations levelled against the detenu is of year 2018 when he
was a juvenile and in view of the law laid down under Juvenile Justice Act, he
cannot be subject to any disqualification for any allegation which he is alleged to
have committed as a Juvenile inasmuch as there is no fresh activity attributed to
him post 2018, as such, allegations will not legally justify the passing of
detention order against the detenu.
v) that the detaining authority has not prepared the grounds of detention by
itself, which is a pre-requisite for him before passing any detention order which
clearly depicts the non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority.
vi) that grounds of detention do not disclose any activity on the basis whereof
order of detention can be passed and it appears that impugned detention order
has been passed against detenu due to mistaken identity and misinformation;
vii) that detaining authority has not assigned any compelling and cogent
reason for passing order of detention.
2. Respondents have filed reply affidavit, insisting therein that the activities
indulged in by detenu are prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of
the State, and that the activities narrated in the grounds of detention have been
reiterated in the reply affidavit filed by respondents. The factual averments that
detenu was not supplied with relevant material relied upon in the grounds of
detention have been refuted. It is insisted that all the relevant material, which has
been relied upon by the detaining authority, was provided to the detenu at the time
of execution of warrant.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.
4. Though various submissions have been made by counsel for petitioner, yet
intriguingly an important aspect of the matter has been brought before this Court
during the course of advancement of arguments. He has invited attention of this
Court to impugned order of detention, particularly first line thereof and thus, it
would be relevant to reproduce the same hereunder:
“Whereas, on the basis of grounds of detention placed before
me by the Superintendent of Police Kulgam……”
5. From the above, it is palpably apparent that detaining authority has
mentioned that it is “on the basis of grounds of detention placed before” him “by
the Superintendent of Police Kulgam” that he is satisfied to place detenu under
preventive detention.
6. It is important to mention here that detaining authority may get inputs from
Page 2
HCP no.09/2023
different agencies, including Senior Superintendent of Police concerned, but
formulation of grounds of detention is exclusive responsibility of detaining
authority. It is the detaining authority, who has to go through reports and other
inputs received by him from concerned police and other agencies and on such
perusal,it has to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that a person is to be placed under
preventive detention. It is, therefore, for detaining authority to formulate grounds of
detention and satisfy itself that grounds of detention so formulated warrant passing
of order of preventive detention. However, in the instant case, it is evident from
impugned order of detention that grounds of detention have not been prepared by
detaining authority and resultantly impugned detention order is vitiated.
7. Another question that has been raised by counsel for petitioner is whether
prejudicial activities of a person necessitating passing of a detention order is
proximate to time when the order is made or live-link between the prejudicial
activities and purpose of detention is snapped, depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. Nonetheless, when there is an undue and long delay
between the prejudicial activities and passing of detention order, the court has to
scrutinize whether detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and
given a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned
when called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate whether the
casual connection has been broken in the circumstances of each case. Undoubtedly,
in the present case, there is no cogent explanation coming to fore from perusal of
the grounds of detention with reference to live-link between prejudicial activities
and purpose ofdetention and resultantly impugned detention order is liable to be
quashed. In this regard reference is made to T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala
(1989) 4 SCC 741 and Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others (2006) 4 SCC
796].
8. Based on the supra discussion, Detention Order No.01/DMK/PSA/2023
dated 22.06.2023, issued by District Magistrate, Kulgam, against detenu is
quashed. Respondents, including Jail Superintendent concerned, are directed to
release the detenu forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.
Disposed of.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul)
Judge
SRINAGAR
24.12.2024
(Qazi Amjad Secy.)
Whether approved for reporting? No
Page 3
HCP no.09/2023