AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajnesh Oswal, J
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Heard and perused the record.
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 Arms Act was registered with Police Station, Rajbagh, FIR No. 171/2019 for commission of offences under sections 341, 147, 332, 353, 307 and 382 RPC was registered with Police Station, Rajbagh, FIR No. 10/2020 for commission of offences under sections 458, 365, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC was registered with Police Station, Sadar Pathankot and FIR No. 42/2021 for commission of offences under sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and 3/25 Arms Act was registered with Police Station, Rajbagh.
From the execution report dated 11.08.2021, it is evident that detention order, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier of detention, copies of FIRs, statements of witnesses and other relevant documents were supplied to appellant and in acknowledgment thereof, the appellant signed in English and simultaneously he was also informed that he can make representation to the detaining authority or to the Government against the said order of detention. Further the grounds of detention have been read over and explained to the appellant in Dogri and Hindi language. It needs to be noted that in writ petition, the appellant has stated that he understands Hindi language. Further after receipt of opinion from the Advisory Board, the Government vide its order dated 15.089.2021 confirmed the detention order. Thus it is evident that all constitutional as well as procedural safeguards have been followed by the respondents and the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the constitutional and procedural safeguards have been followed by the respondents while passing the detention order.
Further from the record, it is also evident that in two FIRs relied upon by respondent No. 2 while issuing the order of detention i.e. FIR No. 27/2014 and FIR No. 07/2017 of Police Station, Narote, Pathankot, the appellant has been acquitted by the JMIC, Pathankot vide orders dated 14.12.2016 and 01.02.2018 respectively. In the order of detention, no doubt the details of these FIRs have been mentioned but simultaneously in the column status of the case, it has been mentioned that the challan has been produced in both these FIRs. Had the detention order been issued only on the basis of these two FIRs only, then certainly the order of detention was required to be quashed. But the fact remains that there are other FIRs as well as such this plea is of no help to the appellant. In Gautam Jain v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 133 the Apex Court has held as under:
“18. A glimpse of the nature of issue involved, and the arguments which are advanced by both the parties thereupon, makes it crystal clear that insofar as the legal position is concerned, there is no dispute, nor can there be any dispute in this behalf. Both the parties are at ad idem that if the detention order is based on more than one grounds, independent of each other, then the detention order will still survive even if one of the grounds found is non-existing or legally unsustainable ([Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. State of U.P., (1990) 2 SCC 629). On the other hand, if the detention order is founded on one composite ground, though containing various species or sub-heads, the detention order would be vitiated if such ground is found fault with ([A. Sowkath Ali v. Union of India, (2000) 7 SCC 148). Thus, in the instant case, outcome of the appeal depends upon the question as to whether detention order is based on one ground alone or it is a case of multiple grounds on which the impugned detention order was passed.”
It would be appropriate to note that order of preventive detention can be issued on the basis of one solitary incident also (See Shiv Ratan Makim v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 404). In fact allegations in all the remaining FIRs are very serious in nature and particularly in FIR No. 17/2019 u/s 341, 147, 332, 353, 307 and 382 RPC registered with Police Station, Rajbagh, the appellant along with his associates at a road attacked the Police officials and fled away after snatching their motorcycle. This act of the appellant has the propensity of disturbing public order and in fact every year the appellant has indulged in at least one illegal act and there is justification on the part of respondent No.2 in issuing the order of detention. No fault can be found with the issuance of order impugned. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in case, titled, Banka Sneha Sheela vs. State of Telangana & Ors, (2021) 9 SCC 415 is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
Needless to say that the procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to the detenue, since the Court cannot go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B. K. Jha reported in (1987) 2 SCC 22, it has been held by the Apex Court that the procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a detenue since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements are, therefore, to be strictly complied with, if any, value is to be attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights guaranteed to him in that regard.
In Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCC 198, the Apex Court has held that the principles which can be broadly stated are these. First, merely because a detenu is liable to be tried in a criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence or to be proceeded against for preventing him from committing offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not by itself debar the Government from taking action for his detention under the Act. Second, the fact that the Police arrests a person and later on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to prosecute him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a first information report may be no bar against the District Magistrate issuing an order under the preventive detention. Third, where the concerned person is actually in jail custody at the time when an order of detention is passed against him and is not likely to be released for a fair length of time, it may be possible to contend that there could be no satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the likelihood of such a person indulging in activities which would jeopardise the security of the State or the public order. Fourth, the mere circumstance that a detention order is passed during the pendency of the prosecution will not violate the order. Fifth, the order of detention is a precautionary measure. It is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances.
We have gone through the judgment passed by learned Single judge and we find the same to be well reasoned based upon the settled propositions of law and as such, we find no reason to show any indulgence.
In view of the above, judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition bearing WP(Crl) No. 53/2021 is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.