Srinagar, Feb 2: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh recently ruled that an order of preventive detention should not be passed against a person merely on the apprehension that such person is likely to get bail
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed so while releasing the petitioner-detenu against whom an order was issued by the District Magistrate at Srinagar after he was bailed out in a case registered at Soura police station on August 19, 2020.
“If detaining authority is apprehensive that in case detenu is released on bail he may again carry on his criminal activities, then in such situation, the authority should oppose the bail application and, in the event, bail is granted, the authority should challenge such a bail order in the higher forum and that merely on the ground that an accused in detention is likely to get bail, an order of preventive detention should not ordinarily be passed,” single-judge Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul said.
The Court was hearing a plea by one Muyeeb Shafi Ganie (petitioner) challenging his preventive detention.
Ganie was placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the state soon after he was given bail in the FIR against him.
Ganie challenged the preventive detention order on the ground that the detaining authority had not furnished the material including dossier relied upon by it to pass the order of preventive detention.
This had prevented him from making an effective representation against the detention order, it was contended.
His counsel argued the FIR against Ganie was taken into account by detaining authority while passing the order, unmindful of the fact that Ganie had been bailed out in the said FIR and there were no further activities alleged against him.
The High Court found force in the submission of detenu.
It said that the detenu cannot be expected to make a meaningful exercise of his Constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act of 1978 unless and until the material on which the detention order is based, is supplied to him.
Hence, the High Court quashed the detention order issued by District Magistrate against the petitioner-detenu.
Advocate Wajid Haseeb appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Government Advocate Sajad Ashraf appeared on behalf of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.–(Bar & Bench)
