news details |
|
|
| High Court upholds PSA of habitual criminal | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, May 7: Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the detention under PSA of Paramjeet Kumar alias Jungi who is allegedly a habitual criminal.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while upholding the detention order, observed that a perusal of the grounds of detention, which are subject matter of the present case, reveals that, besides the aforesaid six FIRs, FIR No. 58/2022 of Police Station, Miran Sahib, FIR No. 64/2023 of Police Station R.S.Pura and FIR No. 87/23 of Police Station R.S.Pura also find mention in the grounds of detention. So, it is not a case where the impugned order of detention is based upon the same FIRs that were the basis of earlier detention order, but, it is a case where, after quashing of previous detention order, the detneue has been found involved in at least three more criminal cases relating to drug trafficking, possession of illicit arms and extortion. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the detenue that the basis of the impugned detention order is the same that was the basis of earlier detention order, that was quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.10.2018, is without any merit. Apart from the above, the grounds of detention bear reference to as many as 12 FIRs meaning thereby that the detenue has been found involved in as many as 12 criminal cases continuously since the year 2011 up to the year 2023. The fact that the detenue has been involved in a series of criminal activities leading to his prosecution repeatedly and continuously, prima facie, shows that ordinary law of land has not deterred him from indulging in criminal activities. The grounds of detention reveal that the detenue has been enlarged on bail in all the cases except one, namely FIR No. 87/2023 which was still under investigation as on date of formulating the grounds of detention. The said case relates to an occurrences of 01.06.2023 and pertains to offences under Sections 458/323/382 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act. Having regard to the fact that detenue has succeeded in getting bail in all other 11 criminal cases, some of which are more serious in nature, the apprehension of the Detaining Authority that the detenue may be able to secure bail in the latest FIR also, cannot be termed as ‘unfounded’. Thus, in spite of the detenue being in custody at the time of passing of the impugned order of detention, the material on record clearly shows that there were compelling circumstances for the detaining authority to pass order of detention so as to prevent him from indulging in similar criminal activities.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the detenue that that whole of the material, forming basis of the grounds of detention, has not been provided to the detenue, nor the grounds of detention have been explained to him in the language he understands. The execution report bears the signatures of the detenue in token of having received these documents. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the detenue has not been provided whole of the material forming the basis of grounds of detention.
Similarly, contention of the detenue that he has not been explained the grounds of detention in the language he understands, is also without any merit. Not only the execution report provides that the Executing Officer has read over and explained the grounds of detention to the detenue in hindi as well as dogri languages, but even the affidavit of the Executing officer, which is available in the detention record, also substantiates this fact. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the detenue has not been made to understand the grounds of detention.
Another argument that has been urged by the detenue is that he has not been informed about his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority. In this regard, a look at the detention record reveals that the Detaining Authority has addressed a communication dated 28.06.2023 to the detenue, a copy whereof has been placed on record by the detenue as Annexure-A to the writ petition. As per this communication, the detenue has been informed about his right to make a representation not only before the Government, but also before the Detaining Authority. The contention of the detenue in this regard is belied from his own documents.
With these observations, Court do not find any ground to interfere with the order of detention. The petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly dismissed. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
