news details |
|
|
| Division Bench stays PSA order at pre-execution stage | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, July 16: Division Bench of J&K High Court comprising, Justice A M Magrey and Justice Vinod Kumar Chatterjee has stayed a Public Safety Act (PSA) detention order issued by the District Magistrate Jammu.
The DB stayed the arrest of Harvinder Singh alias Rambo and issued notice to the respondents. “The impugned order of detention shall not be acted upon till the next date of hearing,” the Division Bench stated.
Advocate A K Sawhney made “virtual” submissions before the Division Bench of the High Court through video conference and submitted that the detention order passed under Public Safety Act is illegal, arbitrary and beyond the scope of Law.
The authorities misconstrued the definition of “Public Order “ which is a prerequisite for passing detention order. Moreover the basis of the PSA are the FIRs which are very old and in earlier PSA order these grounds were set aside and again it can’t be the basis of another PSA.
He submitted that on the strength of the same complaints/ FIRs (except one) all the FIRs against the appellant/ writ petitioners P.S. An order was passed in 1997, 2002, 2001 , 2010, 2016 and 2019 and except for one FIR of 2019 all other FIRs were previously also the ground of detention on which basis the PSA Order no. 36/PSA of 2010 dated 17.7.2010 was issued directing detention.
As a consequence the appellant/ writ petitioner was arrested and the order was challenged by the appellant/ writ petitioner in the J&K High Court at Jammu in a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 21 of 2010 and the detention order was quashed by the High Court on 16-12-2010 and the appellant/ writ petitioner was released but strangely, now again in a mechanical manner, the respondents passed the impugned order No. 17 of 2019 and consequential orders attached herewith which are based upon the same FIRs with one additional.
Adv A K Sawhney submitted that these FIRs which have no relevance today are the same and have been disposed of.
The court has not convicted the petitioner even in a single case.
The judgment of the High Court releasing the petitioner from PSA detention dealt with these FIRs (barring one) and it was observed by the Court that the detenue was shown involved in various criminal cases however the copies of the judgments show that the detenue was acquitted by the Courts and the detaining authority seems to be unaw are of these facts and which shows that the authority has acted in most careless manner, he submitted.
The same situation has arisen again when all these FIRs have been reproduced and no mention of the previous PSA order has been made and only to prejudice the appellant/ writ petitioner on the same grounds the PSA order has been quashed. Thus it is amply clear that the detaining authority was misled and never informed about the fate of the previous PSA detentions and all these criminal cases/ FIRs, argued advocate Sawhney.
That the freedom to life and liberty is the most precious freedom and the act of the respondents in curtailing the freedom and liberty of the petitioner has been exercised in the most illegal and callous manner, arbitrarily and without application of mind and the petitioner is an innocent and is being made a scapegoat at the behest of some influential Mafia. He submitted that the impugned order at the very face of it is violative to section 8 of the J&K PSA.
Neither the alleged acts/FIRs are related to being prejudicial to the security of the state nor to the maintenance of public order. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
