news details |
|
|
| Live security threat justifies PSA despite bail: HC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, July 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Tral resident under the Public Safety Act, ruling that grant of bail in criminal cases does not bar the authorities from invoking preventive detention where the material discloses a continuing and proximate threat to the security of the State.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of 25-year-old Sakib Akbar Waza of Gulshanpora, Tral, challenging the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Pulwama, on May 1, 2025. Waza is presently lodged in District Jail, Kathua.
The petitioner had alleged that the detaining authority mechanically relied upon the dossier submitted by the police without independently applying its mind. It was also contended that the detention order, grounds and supporting material were not supplied to the detenue, thereby depriving him of his constitutional right to make an effective representation.
The petitioner further claimed that the detention grounds were vague and were neither explained nor supplied in Urdu or Kashmiri. Another major ground of challenge was that the detenue had already been granted bail in the FIRs forming the basis of the PSA order.
After examining the detention record, the High Court found that the detenue had been provided 46 leaves comprising the detention order, grounds of detention, police dossier and other supporting documents.
The execution report recorded that the entire material was read over and explained to the detenue in Kashmiri and Urdu. Translated copies of the grounds of detention and police dossier were also supplied to him, and their receipt was acknowledged by his signatures.
The court noted that the Advisory Board had also examined the detention and found it to be well-founded and in conformity with Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The Government subsequently confirmed the detention under Section 17(1) of the Act.
According to the material placed before the District Magistrate, Waza had earlier been arrested in FIR No. 153 of 2020, arising out of an anti-militancy operation in which a militant was killed. He was subsequently enlarged on bail.
He was also allegedly involved in FIR No. 24 of 2021, relating to an encounter in which two militants of Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind were killed and arms and ammunition were recovered.
The detention record further alleged that despite the criminal cases and repeated preventive proceedings, the detenue continued to indulge in activities prejudicial to State security, including sharing information about the movement of security forces and providing logistical support to militants.
Rejecting the argument that preventive detention could not be ordered when ordinary criminal law was available, the High Court held that preventive detention is precautionary in nature and is qualitatively different from punitive imprisonment.
Relying upon Supreme Court judgments, the court observed that a preventive detention order may be passed before, during or after prosecution and even after the detenue has been discharged or acquitted in a criminal case.
The court said that the preventive proceedings initiated shortly before the detention order provided a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the subjective satisfaction reached by the District Magistrate.
It further observed that constitutional courts do not sit as appellate authorities over the subjective satisfaction of a detaining authority. Once the order is based on relevant material and procedural safeguards have been complied with, the court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority.
Finding no violation of constitutional or statutory safeguards, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the PSA detention order.
Advocate Sheikh Aamir Mushtaq appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Jehangir Ahmad Dar represented the Union Territory administration. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
