news details |
|
|
| HC upholds PSA detention of Pulwama man; habeas corpus plea dismissed | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 20: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Pulwama resident under the J&K Public Safety Act and dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed through his mother challenging the detention order. The petition arose out of Detention Order No. 06/DMP/PSA/25 dated April 30, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama under Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978.
Justice M. A. Chowdhary passed the judgment in HCP No. 198/2025, Rouf Ahmad Lone vs UT of J&K & Ors. The petitioner had sought quashment of the detention on the grounds that the order was based on false and vague allegations, that the material relied upon had not been supplied to the detenue, that he had not been informed of his right to make a representation and that the grounds of detention were stale.
After hearing the parties and perusing the detention record, the Court noted that the detenue had earlier been arrested in FIR No. 19/2022 registered at Police Station Kakapora under Sections 18, 19, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA and was released on bail on October 17, 2022. The Court further observed that he was again subjected to preventive measures on March 10, March 23 and April 24, 2025 under Section 126 of the BNSS.
The judgment records that the grounds of detention referred to allegations of the detenue's involvement in anti-national activities and contacts linked to banned outfit LeT. The detention record also referred to alleged delivery and transfer of money at the instance of Reyaz Ahmad Dar, described in the record as a now-killed LeT militant, besides allegations that the detenue was asked to arrange a SIM card.
Rejecting the challenge, the High Court held that the detention record showed the detenue had been informed of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority as well as to the Government. The Court also noted that copies of detention warrant, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier, complaints and beat report had been supplied and explained to him in Urdu/Kashmiri language.
The Court reiterated that preventive detention is preventive and not punitive in nature and that the scope of judicial review over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is limited. Holding that the petition was devoid of merit, the Court upheld the impugned detention order and dismissed the petition along with connected applications.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
