Srinagar: A preventative detention order against a person that was issued in the absence of a FIR against him has been revoked by the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
“Surprisingly, when no FIR is shown to have been registered against the petitioner, then how come 27 leaves of FIR, etc, have been provided to him. This exhibits total non-application of mind and overzealousness on the part of the detaining authority, which casts serious doubt about the authenticity of the receipt,” the Bar and Bench reported quoting a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar as saying.
The bench also noted that the petitioner-detenu was accused of being associated with militant groups. However, there was no mention in the dossier as to the particulars of the place and the identity of the militants, on whose directions the petitioner was allegedly working.
“Thus, the grounds, being vague and lacking in material particulars, the detenue could not have made an effective representation against his detention. Therefore, there has been violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution,” the report added quoting the judgement.
The District Magistrate of Anantnag issued the detention order based on the detention record, which consisted of 36 leaves of material, including the detention order (one leaf), notice of detention (one leaf), grounds for detention (two leaves), detention dossier (five leaves), copies of the FIR, witness statements, and other pertinent documents (seven leaves).
The respondent-authority insisted that the detenue’s actions were seriously detrimental to the state’s security.
The petitioner was given a dossier of detention (05 leaves), but according to the detention record, the police dossier only has four leaves. The court, therefore, stated that the records appear to have been altered.
The petitioner submitted a representation through his father, and the respondents received it, the court also noted. However, there was no proof that the representation had been taken into account or that the petitioner had been informed of any decision. It was determined that this disregard for the representation violated constitutional protections.
As a result, the Court ordered the detenue’s immediate release from preventive custody.
