news details |
|
|
| HC quashes PSA of two | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 3: Justice Rashid Ali Dar of J&K High Court while deciding two different habeas corpus petitions, quashed the impugned bearing No. 128/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 21.02.2019, passed by District Magistrate, Baramulla and detention No. 18/DMP/PSA/19 dated 15.03.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Pulwama and directed to release the detenues namely Mubashir Ishrat S/o Dr Hakim Ishrat Jeelani R/o Pinglena Tehsil & District Pulwama and Irshad Ahmad Bhat forthwith provided he is not required in connection with any other case(s).
Justice Rashid Ali Dar in HCP filed by Mubashir Ishrat observed that on the touchstone of the law laid down above, the detenue in the present case could not have been detained after taking recourse to the provisions of the Public Safety Act, when he was already in the custody of the police authorities in the above referred case, therefore, in view of the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, the order of detention, impugned, does not sustain on the aforesaid grounds. Other grounds projected in the petition are not required to be dealt with. With these observations High Court quashed the detention order.
In the petition filed by Irshad Ahmed Bhat, Justice Rashid Ali Dar observed that The detenu is an illiterate person and it is absolutely necessary that when we are dealing with a detenu who cannot read or understand English language or any language at all that the grounds of detention should be explained to him as early as possible in the language he understands so that he can avail himself of the statutory right of making a representation.
To hand over to him the document written in English and to obtain his thumb impression on it in token of his having received the same does not comply with the requirements of the law which gives a very valuable right to the detenue to make a representation which right is frustrated by handling over to him the grounds of detention in an alien language. We are therefore compelled to hold in this case that the requirement of explaining the grounds to the detenu in his own language was not complied with. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
