Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Unknown vs (I) Ut Of J&K on 19 December, 2024
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 106/2024
Reserved on: 05.12.2024
Pronounced on: 19.12.2024
(i) Imtiaz Ahmed alias Maju, .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Age 35 years,
S/o Late Manzoor Ahmed Gujjar,
R/o Rakh Jarrog, Batote,
District Ramban
Through his wife
Shabnam Akhter, Aged 19,
W/o Imtiaz Ahmed alias Maju,
R/o Rakh Jarrog, Batote,
District Ramban
Through:- Mr. Pawan Khajuria, Advocate.
V/s
(i) UT of J&K, .....Respondent(s)
Through Commissioner/Secretary,
Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar
(ii) District Magistrate, Ramban
(iii)SSP, Ramban
(iv) Superintendent, District Jail,
Amphalla, Jammu
Through:- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia.G.A vice
Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, G.A.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) Through the medium of this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of
Detention Order No. 39/PSA of 2023 dated 20.03.2023, passed by District
Magistrate, Ramban, (hereinafter referred to as „Detaining Authority‟)
placing the detenu-Imtiaz Ahmed alias Maju S/o Late Manzoor Ahmed
Gujjar R/o Rakh Jarrog, Tehsil Batote, District Ramban, (hereinafter referred
HCP No. 106/2024 Page 2 of 8
to as „detenu‟). The detenu has been placed under preventive detention with
a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order, on the grounds made mention of therein. The
Detaining Authority has detained the detenu, under Section 8 of the J&K
Public Safety Act, 1978, to prevent him from acting in any manner which is
highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This order of detention
has been challenged by the detenu through his wife-Shabnam Akhter.
2) As per the dossier submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Ramban,
the detenu was involved in five different FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 171/2022
registered under Sections 188/109 IPC and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 at Police Station Banihal; (ii) FIR No. 173/2022
registered under Sections 188/109 IPC and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 at Police Station Banihal; (iii) FIR No. 232/2022
registered under Sections 188/109 IPC and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act, 1960 at Police Station Banihal; (iv) FIR No. 353/2022
registered under Sections 188/109/269/270 IPC and 11 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 at Police Station Ramban and (v) FIR No.
186/2022 registered under Sections 188/109 IPC and 11 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 at Police Station Batote; (vi) FIR No.
354/2022 registered under Sections 188/109 IPC and 11 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 at Police Station Ramban. The allegation
against the detenu is that he is a habitual bovine smuggler and his repeated
involvement in offences under Section 188/IPC and 11 of the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which reflects a continuous pattern of his
HCP No. 106/2024 Page 3 of 8
illegal activities and the actions of detenu have caused communal tensions,
which poses a significant threat to peace and stability in the region.
3) The aforesaid FIRs against the detenu reflect on the activities of the
detenu which poses a serious threat to public peace. The Detaining
Authority, after considering the police dossier, arrived at its subjective
satisfaction that detention of the detenu was necessary to prevent him from
acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
4) The impugned detention order has been assailed by the detenu on the
grounds that: (i) the allegations in the detention order are baseless, as no
new activity by the petitioner was observed, rendering the detention
without supporting material or records; (ii) There was non-supply of
documents, staleness of grounds; (iii) there were no compelling necessity
for detention, showing a lack of application of mind by the detaining
authority; (iv) the detention is based on stale grounds and there is no recent
activity of the detenu to warrant his detention; (v) the detenu was arrested
for incidents between July and October 2022, with six consecutive cases
registered within three months; (vi) The detaining authority failed to
explain the detenu‟s activities during the intervening one-and-a-half-year
period with proper material; (vii) the detenu was not informed about his
right to make a representation to the detaining authority or the Government;
(vii) the detention order was not explained to the detenu in the language he
understands; and (vii) the detenu was not provided all the relevant material
due to which he could not make a representation.
5) The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and produced the
detention record. It is submitted by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate,
HCP No. 106/2024 Page 4 of 8
Ramban, that the detention order was passed after due application of mind
and consideration of all material facts and circumstances. The
Superintendent of Police, Ramban, vide its dossier No.
CB/DOSSER/23/1730 dated 07.02.2023, recommended the detention of
Imtiaz Ahmed alias Maju, S/o Late Manzoor Ahmed Gujjar, R/o Rakhjarrog,
Tehsil Batote, District Ramban, under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978,
citing his habitual involvement in illegal activities, particularly bovine
smuggling. The detenu was repeatedly engaged in transporting bovines from
Ramban to Banihal and onwards to the Kashmir Valley for slaughter,
causing communal disharmony and posing a threat to public peace and
security. Multiple FIRs were registered against him, including FIR Nos.
171/2022, 173/2022, 232/2022, 353/2022, 186/2022, and 354/2022, all of
which were closed as challans were presented in court. However, despite
these actions, the detenu persisted in his unlawful activities, creating fear,
insecurity, and communal tension in the region. Considering the grave threat
posed to public order, the District Magistrate detained the detenu vide
impugned detention order. The detention order, along with the grounds for
detention, was duly served on the petitioner in the language he understands,
i.e., Hindi/Dogri, the receipt of which was signed by the detenu.
6) The respondent No. 3-Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ramban, further
submits that the notice of detention, detention order, grounds of detention,
and dossier were provided to him. These documents were explained to the
detenu in Hindi/Dogri, which he understood fully, and his
acknowledgment was obtained on the execution report. The detention
order was duly approved by the Home Department and subsequently
HCP No. 106/2024 Page 5 of 8
confirmed by the Advisory Board. The illegal activities of detenu were
threat to public peace and security. The Detaining Authority, thus, deemed
it necessary to detain him under the Public Safety Act to prevent him from
further pursuing such activities.
7) The respondents have submitted that the detention order was issued
in accordance with statutory and constitutional provisions, and the
grounds of detention were duly communicated to the detenu in a language
he understands. It is further submitted that preventive detention under the
Public Safety Act was essential to prevent him from engaging in activities
prejudicial to public order and that the grounds of detention are precise,
proximate, pertinent and relevant and clearly substantiate the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority.
8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9) Perusal of the record reveals that the detenu has been detained for his
activities which were found to be prejudicial to the public peace and order. In
the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority, has relied on the fact that
the detenu was involved in six FIRs, i.e., 171/2022, 173/2022, 232/2022,
353/2022, 186/2022, and 354/2022. However, there is a clear non-
application of mind, as the Detaining Authority has failed to consider the fact
that no FIR other than the FIRs mentioned above has been registered against
the detenu after October 2022, during which the applicant was on bail
10) Learned counsel for the detenue submits that the Detaining Authority
has detained the detenue on the basis of stale grounds which are irrelevant,
cryptic and therefore, the order of detention is bad.
HCP No. 106/2024 Page 6 of 8
11) There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the detenu that
there is no live link between the last activity and the impugned detention order.
The detaining authority has relied upon the aforesaid FIRs while passing the
impugned order, without considering that the detenu was admittedly on bail,
and no further activities have been alleged against the detenu. Therefore, the
impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
12) The determination of whether the prejudicial activities of an
individual, necessitating the issuance of a detention order, are sufficiently
proximate to the time the order is made, or whether the live link between
the activities and the purpose of detention has been severed, depends on
the specific facts and circumstances of each case. However, when there is
an undue and prolonged delay between the prejudicial activities and the
passing of the detention order, the court must examine whether the
detaining authority has provided a satisfactory and reasonable explanation
for such delay. The court must also assess whether the causal link has
been broken in the context of the particular circumstances of the case.
13) Another important aspect of the matter is that no FIR has been
registered against the detenu after October 2022, while the detenu was on
bail. However, the detention order was issued on 20.03.2023, nearly two
years after his last alleged activity.
14) In the present case, there is no cogent explanation coming forth from
perusal of the grounds of detention with reference to the live-link between
the prejudicial activities and the purpose of the detention and resultantly
the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed. In this regard
reference is made to the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in „T.
HCP No. 106/2024 Page 7 of 8
A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala‘ (1989) 4 SCC 741, and ‘Rajinder
Arora v. Union of India and others’, (2006) 4 SCC 796. Para 24 of the
judgment passed in ‘Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana and another‘,
AIR 2017 SC 2662, reads as under:
“24. There is another reason why the detention order is unjustified. It
was passed when the accused was in jail in Crime No.221 of 2016. His
custody in jail for the said offence was converted into custody under the
impugned detention order. The incident involved in this offence is
sometime in the year 2002-2003. The detenu could not have been
detained preventively by taking this stale incident into account, more so
when he was in jail.”
15) It was next submitted that the detenu was enlarged on bail in these FIRs
and the Detaining Authority without considering this fact has passed the order o
of detention which reflects total non-application of mind by the Detaining
Authority. Similar issue has been dealt by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of
“Anant Sakharam Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra and another” reported
as AIR 1987 SC 137, and has held as under: –
“…We hold that there was clear non-application of mind on the part of
detaining authority about the fact that the petitioner was granted bail when
the order of detention was passed. In the result we set aside the judgment
of the Bombay High Court under appeal, quash the order of detention and
direct that the petitioner be released forthwith.”
16) It is next submitted that even if the detenu was released on bail, then the
respondents had to oppose the bail application. The law on the subject is
settled. If the detaining authority is apprehensive that, in case the detenu is
released on bail, he may again carry on his criminal activities, then in such a
situation, the authority should oppose the bail application. In the event that
bail is granted, the authority should challenge such a bail order in a higher
HCP No. 106/2024 Page 8 of 8
forum. Merely on the ground that an accused in detention is likely to get bail,
an order of preventive detention should not ordinarily be passed.
17) In ‘Ramesh Yadav vs. District Magistrate, Etah and others‘, reported
as AIR 1986 SC 315, this Court observed as follows:
“6. On a reading of the grounds, particularly the paragraph which we have
extracted above, it is clear that the order of detention was passed as the
detaining authority was apprehensive that in case the detenu was released on
bail he would again carry on his criminal activities in the area. If the
apprehension of the detaining authority was true, the bail application had to be
opposed and in case bail was granted, challenge against that order in the
higher forum had to be raised. Merely on the ground that an accused in
detention as an under-trial prisoner was likely to get bail an order of detention
under the Nation Security Act should not ordinarily be passed.”
18) In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is no need to advert to other
grounds raised in this petition. This petition is allowed and Detention Order
No. 39/PSA of 2023 dated 20.03.2023, passed by District Magistrate,
Ramban, under which detenu- Imtiaz Ahmed alias Maju, S/o Late Manzoor
Ahmed Gujjar, R/o Rakh Jarrog, Tehsil Batote, District Ramban, is quashed.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release the detenu from the
custody forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.
19) Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the
respondents by the Registry forthwith.
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
Jammu:
19.12.2024
Michal Sharma/PSWhether the judgment is reportable : Yes
Michal Sharma
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Jammu
23.12.2024 11:01
[ad_1]
Source link