news details |
|
|
| High Court quashes detention of two | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 26: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court today quashed the detention under Public Safety Act of two namely Amir Majeed Wani and Imtiyaz Ahmad Sheikh.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while quashing the detention order observed that since the ground on which the order of detention is rendered unsustainable goes to the legitimacy of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and, therefore, this Court need not dwell and consider other grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner. With these observations, petitions are allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioners from preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.
Amir Majeed Wani ("the detenue") has filed this petition through his father seeking to quash his detention ordered by the District Magistrate, Shopian ("the Detaining Authority") vide its order No.55/DMS/PSA/2019 dated 23.08.2019.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar while quashing the detention order of District Magistrate, Shopian vide its order No.55/DMS/PSA/2019 dated 23.08.2019 whereby Amir Majeed Wani had been detained, observed that In the instant case, though, very detailed reply affidavit has been filed by the Detaining Authority, yet no attempt seems to have been made to explain the delay of about three weeks in passing the order of detention and about four months in executing the impugned order of detention. The petitioner was all along in the custody of the respondents. He was arrested in FIR No.39/2019 and was in custody when the order of detention was made and had not been released on bail. The judgments referred to herein above support the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and render the order impugned bad in the eye of law.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar while quashing detention of Imtiyaz Ahmad Sheikh whose detention ordered by the District Magistrate, Baramulla ("the Detaining Authority") vide its order No.09/DMB/PSA/2019 dated 04.07.2019, observed that In the instant case, though, very detailed reply affidavit has been filed by the Detaining Authority, yet no attempt seems to have been made to explain the delay of two months in passing the order of detention and more than four months in executing the impugned order of detention. The petitioner was all along in the custody of the respondents. He was arrested in FIR No.29/2019 and was on remand when the order of detention was made and had not been released on bail or otherwise when the detention order was executed. The judgments referred to herein above support the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and render the order impugned bad in the eye of law. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
