news details |
|
|
| Alleged criminal’s detention quashed | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 15: Quashing the detention order, under PSA passed by the District Magistrate Doda, whereby Rouf Ahmed son Ghulam Ahmed resident of Thanalla Tehsil Bhaderwah District Doda, was detained under PSA on November 16, 2007, Justice Nirmal Singh of Jammu and Kashmir High Court today maintained that detaining authority has to give compelling reasons for passing the order of detention while detenue is already in custody.
In the present case no such compelling reason has been recorded by the detaining authority, Justice Singh observed and ordered that the detenue be set free forthwith, if not required, in any other case.
The detenue filed this habeas corpus petition through Adv Amrish Kapoor challenging the detention under Public Safety Act on various grounds. He submitted that a case under FIR No 188/2006, came to be registered against the detenue in the police station Bhaderwah u/s 307 RPC (attempt to murder) r/w section 7/27 Arms Act but the detenue was arrested on April 12, 2007 where as the detention order was passed thereafter.
Justice Nirmal Singh after hearing both the sides and perusing the grounds of detention observed that the detenue was already in custody in a case of attempt to murder and Arms Act. The District Magistrate Doda while passing the order of detention has taken into consideration the activities of the detenue prior to his arrest. It is settled proposition of law that when the detenue is already in custody, then the detaining authority is required to satisfy itself that the person, who is in custody, in the event of his release was likely to indulge in activities pre-judicial to the security of the state or maintenance of public order. In the present case, however, no such independent satisfaction has been recorded by the detaining authority while passing order impugned; rather the said authority has reproduced the dossier submitted by the police in verbatim. The documents mentioned in the dossier, as well as the grounds of detention, have not been supplied to the detenue for enabling him to make representation before the advisory board. In this regard Court referred judgments of the Supreme Court and allowed the habeas corpus petition and quashed the detention order passed by the DM with the direction that petitioner be set-free forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
