Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J. quashed the detention order of Masood Ahmad Bhat while directing for his release from the preventive custody.
Denetu, Masood Ahmad Bhat, sought quashing of detention order dated 22-01-2019.
The grounds of which the detention order was challenged were as follows:
- No compelling reason or circumstance was disclosed in the order; more so on the date of the passing of the order of detention, the detenu was already in custody.
- Material forming detenu’s order of detention not provided in order to make representation
- Detaining authority did not prepare grounds of detention itself; which is a pre-requisite before passing any order.
On receiving the notice passed to the respondents they submitted that the order was in consonance to fact and law and they further sought the dismissal of Habeas Corpus Petition.
Counsel for the petition submitted that in light of the above-stated grounds and the fact that the detenu was already in custody leaves no possibility of detenu being implicated in the activities prejudicial to the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State. Detention Order has been passed in absence of any material and the same is therefore bad in law. He also referred to the Supreme Court case, T.V. Sravanan v. State, (2006) 2 SCC 664.
Observations of the Court
Bench stated that the only precious and valuable right guaranteed to a detenu is of making an effective representation and the same can be done only when the relevant material and grounds of the detention are made available to the detenu.
Since the material is not supplied, right of the detenu to file such representation is impinged upon. Bench relied on the following cases for the said point, Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat, (1982) 3 SCC 440, Khudiram Das v. State of W.B., (1975) 2 SCC 81 & Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 531.
Court examined the present case on the touchstone of the above-settled position of law and perusal for the record, the detenu was not supplied the materials relied upon by the detaining authority. Therefore, the detention of the detenu is vitiated.
Court also added that detenu was involved in the substantive offence and did not apply for bail for the same, thus he can remain in custody for that unless released on bail.[Masood Ahmad Bhat v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 791, decided on 25-09-2019]
