WP(Crl)/463/2022 of SAHIL SHAKEEL Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME DEPARTMENT) on 31 December 2022

J U D G M E N T

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was hardly out of his age of majority of 18 years and was yet to attain age of 19 years when he came to be visited upon not by the challenge of life but by the challenge of law in the conferment of preventive detention order no. 129/DMS/PSA/2022 dated 20.6.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Shopian in purported exercise of his powers under clause-A of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 holding the personal liberty of the petitioner as prejudicial to the security of the UT/country and thus from the age of minority the petitioner found himself landed in the aging of preventive custody by virtue of said detention order no. 129/DMS/PSA/2022 dated 20.6.2022 of the District years and was yet to attain age of 19 years when he came to be visited upon not by the challenge of life but by the challenge of law in the conferment of preventive detention order no. 129/DMS/PSA/2022 dated 20.6.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Shopian in purported exercise of his powers under clause-A of Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 holding the personal liberty of the petitioner as prejudicial to the security of the UT/country and thus from the age of minority the petitioner found himself landed in the aging of preventive custody by virtue of said detention order no. 129/DMS/PSA/2022 dated 20.6.2022 of the District Magistrate, Shopian.

3. The petitioner through his uncle stepped forward with the filing of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking quashment of the detention order. filing of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking quashment of the detention order.

4. This writ petition came to be filed on 15.7.2022 and in the petition the petitioner reckoned himself to be minor and so addressed his position from that perspective. Whether the petitioner has attained the age of majority or not is a borderline case, but the fact remains that the petitioner is of the age which is very impressionable age. From the grounds of challenge it is not forthcoming as to which alleged antecedent acts of the petitioner came to be reported to the District Magistrate, Shopian by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian because there are no factual references found in the Grounds of Detention supporting the impugned Order of Detention. petition the petitioner reckoned himself to be minor and so addressed his position from that perspective. Whether the petitioner has attained the age of majority or not is a borderline case, but the fact remains that the petitioner is of the age which is very impressionable age. From the grounds of challenge it is not forthcoming as to which alleged antecedent acts of the petitioner came to be reported to the District Magistrate, Shopian by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian because there are no factual references found in the Grounds of Detention supporting the impugned Order of Detention.

5. A bare reading of the Grounds of Detention in support of the Order of Detention reflects as if the District Magistrate, Shopian was penning down a fictionalised character conceived in the petitioner. It is repulsive to the probability that an 18-year-old boy can be attributed such generalised allegations which even in the case of hardcore offender of law may fall short on some counts. In the name of Grounds of Detention, the District Magistrate, Shopian has done nothing but borrowed word-wise-word transcript of the Dossier of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian. This Court feels Order of Detention reflects as if the District Magistrate, Shopian was penning down a fictionalised character conceived in the petitioner. It is repulsive to the probability that an 18-year-old boy can be attributed such generalised allegations which even in the case of hardcore offender of law may fall short on some counts. In the name of Grounds of Detention, the District Magistrate, Shopian has done nothing but borrowed word-wise-word transcript of the Dossier of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian. This Court feels disturbed that how and to what extent the detention to which the petitioner has come to be subjected on the basis of the impugned order of detention in terms whereof the petitioner at such an impressionable age has come to be exposed to be in the company of the hardcore jail inmates/detenues and the time spent by him during the course of his detention, must have caused psychological damage to him. The detaining authority seems to have lost the idea of age of the petitioner to whom the preventive detention was being served and that fact itself is a reflective of the non-application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate, Shopian. The impugned order of detention is nothing but a mere postal delivery of the Dossier of Senior Superintendent of Police, Shopian.

6. This Court thus holds the impugned detention Order no. 129/DMS/PSA/2022 dated 20.6.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Shopian as illegal in all its intents and purposes and quashes it with a direction to the release the petitioner-detenue forthwith from the preventive detention. The Superintendent of the concerned jail shall ensure to release the petitioner-detenue forthwith without any loss of time in compliance to the directions of this court. 129/DMS/PSA/2022 dated 20.6.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Shopian as illegal in all its intents and purposes and quashes it with a direction to the release the petitioner-detenue forthwith from the preventive detention. The Superintendent of the concerned jail shall ensure to release the petitioner-detenue forthwith without any loss of time in compliance to the directions of this court.

7. Disposed of.

Srinagar 31.12.2022

N Ahmad

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE

Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No