Rayees Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of J&K & Ors

Sanjay Dhar, J

1) By the instant petition, quashment of order No.21/DMA/PSA/DET/2021 dated 27.05.2021, issued by District Magistrate, Anantnag (for brevity “Detaining Authority”) is sought. In terms of the aforesaid order, Rayees Ahmad Bhat (for short “detenu”) has been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar.

2) The petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch as the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has been further urged that the material which formed basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been provided to the detenue.

3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and insisted that the activities of detenue are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention were handed over to the detenue and the same were read over and explained to him. That the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit and that all the constitutional and procedural safeguards have been strictly followed while issuing the impugned order. The respondents have produced the detention records in order to buttress the contentions raised in the counter affidavit.

4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the detention record.

5) The petitioner has projected a number of grounds for impugning the order of detention. However, the main grounds that have prevailed during the course of arguments are that whole of the material which formed the basis of the grounds of detention and the consequent order of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner and that the grounds of detention are vague, inasmuch as the same are lacking in material particulars which has prevented the petitioner from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It has also been contended that the petitioner has not been informed as to before which authority he has to make his representation.

6) So far as the first ground is concerned, a perusal of the detention record reveals that the petitioner has been furnished as many as 20 leaves which comprise grounds of detention, warrant of detention, dossier and other relevant material mention whereof finds in the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention bear reference to the police dossier and FIR No.27/2021 of P/S Bijbehara. The receipt, which is available in the detention record, has been executed by the detenue. The same evidences the fact that the detenue has received the copies of documents (20 leaves) mentioned in the said receipt. Thus, the material on record suggests that the petitioner has been provided not only the grounds of detention, notice of detention and the warrant of detention but it also shows that he has been furnished copy of police dossier and other relevant documents which includes FIR and statements of witnesses etc. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that he has not been provided whole of the material relied upon by the detaining authority is without any substance.

7) Next it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of detention are vague, inasmuch as the same lack in material particulars as regards the incidents in which the petitioner is alleged to have been involved. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of these material particulars, it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.

8) A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that it has been specifically alleged therein that the petitioner is an over ground worker of proscribed organization Jash-e-Mohammad. It is also indicated in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is prime accused in FIR No.27/2021 for offences under Section 3/5 Exp. Substances Act read with Section 307 IPC and 16 (ULA(P) Act registered with P/S Bijbehara and as per the allegations made in this FIR, the petitioner is involved in transportation of explosive materials besides facilitating movement of militants. The contents of the grounds of detention indicate that the petitioner has been subjected to preventive detention primarily on the basis of the allegations made in the aforesaid FIR, copy whereof including the material relevant to the said FIR, has been furnished to the petitioner. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that due to vagueness of grounds of detention, he has not been able to make an effective representation against the impugned detention order. This is so because the copies of FIR and the material relevant thereto contains specific details about the activities in which the petitioner is alleged to be involved. The ground projected by the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit.

9) Lastly, it has been contended that the petitioner has not been informed as to before which authority he had to make representation against the impugned order of detention.

10) A perusal of the notice of detention reveals that the petitioner has been specifically informed that he is at liberty to make a representation to the detaining authority i.e. District Magistrate, Anantnag, or to the Government by informing the Home Department. Thus, there is no confusion in the intimation given by the respondents to the petitioner as regards the authority before whom the representation was to be made by the petitioner. The ground urged by the petitioner in this regard is without any merit.

11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

12) The record, as produced, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.