news details |
|
|
| DB upholds PSA detention of JeM OGW, dismisses appeal | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Mar 26: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of Mumtaz Ahmed, an alleged Over Ground Worker (OGW) of banned terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad, dismissing his Letters Patent Appeal against an earlier order of the writ court.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal rejected the appeal arising out of HCP No. 118/2024, thereby affirming the detention order issued by the District Magistrate, Poonch, under Section 8 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978. The detention order had been passed on July 26, 2024, to prevent the appellant from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory.
The appellant had challenged the detention mainly on two grounds — that complete material relied upon by the detaining authority was not furnished to him, and that the grounds of detention were merely a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, showing non-application of mind.
Opposing the appeal, the Union Territory, through Senior AAG Monika Kohli, submitted that Mumtaz Ahmed was an active OGW who facilitated logistical support to terrorist groups and leaked sensitive information regarding security force movement in Poonch district. The UT maintained that all constitutional and statutory safeguards had been followed while issuing the detention order.
The court recorded that the allegations against the appellant included links with wanted terrorist operative Haq Nawaz, accused in the 2023 Tota Wali Gali attack in which five Army personnel were martyred. The Bench also noted allegations that the appellant used encrypted means of communication, shared information on troop movement, and helped in logistics and transportation of arms and ammunition for militants operating in the area.
On the issue of non-supply of documents, the Division Bench held that the detaining authority had based its subjective satisfaction on the dossier and District Special Branch report, and that all material actually relied upon, except the privileged intelligence report, had been supplied to the detenu. The court said intelligence inputs need not be disclosed where such disclosure would be against public interest.
Rejecting the plea that the grounds of detention were a carbon copy of the dossier, the High Court observed that though some factual overlap was natural, the grounds had been independently formulated and did not reflect non-application of mind. Finding no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the writ court judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeal along with connected applications. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
