HCP/49/2011 of ROSHAN DIN Vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,KATHUA AND ORS. on 1 December 2011

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMUHC(W) No. 49/2011

Date of Decision: 01.12.2011Rosnan Din |Vs. District Magistrate, Kathua & Ors.

Coram

Roshan Din has filed this Petition through his|father Mohd. Shafi questioning District Magistrate,Kathuas order No. PSA//5 dated 27.06.2011, wherebyne was oraered to be detained in preventive custoayunder Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public|oafety Act, 1978.

Perused the Detention records made available by learned State counsel.

Rosnan Din nas been ordered to be detained on|the ground that he was Involved in illegal import/exportof bovine animals from and to District Kathua In.violation of the orders issued by District Magistrate,Katnua and his acts were prejudicial and detrimental to”the maintenance of public order.

Learned District Magistrate has satisfied himself|on the basis of the material supplied to him by DistrictPolice Headquarters, Kathua, which is founded on FIR”Nos. 08, 136, 154 of 2009, besides O03 of 2010indicating commission of offences punishable under sections 188 RPC and 3/5 of the Prevention of Crueltyto Animals Act, 1990, by tne detenue.

As indicatead in the Detention records, theVetention order was executed on July 18, 2017.

Tne last FIR registerea against the aetenue|pertains to the occurrence of /[th]January, 2010. Rest of|the FIRs pertain to petitioners alleged activities ofillegally import/export of bovine animals in February,2009 and June, 2009.

The grounds of detention formulated by the)District Magistrate are significantly silent about thedetenues activities after January, 2010.

The District Magistrate, therefore, appears to be.unaware about the detenues activities after January2010.)

In the absence of any information or material withthe District Magistrate about detenues activities afterJanuary, 2010, his detention in preventive custody forhis alleged activities of February, 2009, June 2009 andJanuary, 2010, may not be warranted, in that, a personmay be deprived of his right to personal liberty only ifthere was material available with the DetainingAutnority that the person sought to be detained waslikely to indulge in activities for which his detention maybe warranted with a view to prevent him, from acting inany manner prejudicial to the security of the State,maintenance of public order or indulging in smugglingof timber or liquor. —

Tne Detaining Authority being unaware aboutdetenues activities from January 2010 until issuance ofDetention Order, was not, therefore, justified indirecting Roshan Dins detention in preventive custoayin January, 2011 additionally because even afterIssuing the order, no steps appear to have been takenfor executing the Detention Order for more than 20days. Delay in non-execution of the Detention orderremains unexplained.|

Tne)DistrictMagistratesorder.curtallingdetenues liberty without there being any material withhim as to detenues likelinood of indulging in activitiesfor which his detention in preventive custody may bewarranted under law cannot, therefore, be sustained onStale grounds.

For all what has been said above, Roshan Dins|detention in preventive custody is found illegal.

TnisPetition,therefore,succeeds.andIS,accordingly, allowed quashning District Magistrate,Kathua’s Order No. PSA//5 dated 27.06.2011.A direction snall accordingly issue to the|respondents to set the petitioner to liberty forthwithunless required in any other case.

Detention records be returned to the State|counsel.

Jammu:01.12.2011Pawan Chopra

(J. P. Singh)Judge