- In MUSHTAQ AHMAD AHANGAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K & ANR, the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh HC has observed that it is vital for the Detaining Authority to furnish compelling reasons for resorting to preventive detention even if a person is in police or judicial custody or involved in a criminal case.
- The present case arose from a petition filed by Mushtaq Ahmad Ahangar who challenged the legality of the detention orders issued by the District Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the Detaining Authority has passed impugned detention order without application of mind and the grounds mentioned for detention are vague and non-existent as the petitioner had already been admitted bail in one of the FIRs mentioned as the grounds of detention and hence sought to quash the detention orders.
- The respondent contended in the counter affidavit that the activities of the detenu ( the petitioner) are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It was also alleged that detention orders and grounds for detention were handed over and read over to the detenu.
- The Hon’ble Court extracted from the course of argument that there has been non-application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority as it didn't mention the acquittal of detenu in the orders. It was also observed that the detenu was already in custody in connection with offense u/s 147,148,336,307,188,269 IPC and no compelling reasons have been mentioned for the detaining order and same has not been furnished to the detenue.
- The Hon'ble HC upheld the precedent of Anant Sakharam Raut v State of Maharashtra and others, 1987 where the Apex Court observed that non-mentioning of important facts on the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority.
- The judgment of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Surya Prakash Sharma v State of UP and ors, 1994 was also referred which said that the preventive detention orders can be passed even when a person is in police/judicial custody or involved in a criminal case but for doing so, compelling reasons are to be recorded. It was vital to safeguard the petitioner against the arbitrary use of the law of preventive detention given by the Detaining Authority.
- Hence, with reference to the above-mentioned case laws the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh HC, allowed the petition and quashed the detention orders.
"Loved reading this piece by Anushka Naugain?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
