HCP/15/2019 of HAROON RASHID Vs STATE TH.HOME DEPTT.AND ORS. on 31 December 2019

ORDER

01. Present petition has been filed challenging the order of detention passed under the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act’) ordering detention of Haroon Rashid s/o Abdul Rashid.

02. Impugning the aforesaid detention order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dossier was sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri to the District Magistrate which contains the details regarding six FIRs in which the petitioner was involved. Trial in all the aforesaid cases is pending. Challenge to the detention order has been made on the ground that only the copies of the FIRs have been provided and not the supporting material. Most of the documents especially the detention order and the grounds are in English. The petitioner is a semi-literate person, who has studied only up to class-VII. He does not know English. The contents of the order and the material attached were not explained to him. The translated copies thereof were not supplied. Though the grounds for detention were provided to him on 21.03.2019, in the absence of the supporting material, especially the translated copies thereof, which the petitioner understands, he could not make effective representation against his detention. Further the petitioner being in custody, will not be able to make an effective representation. Hence, that remedy is also not efficacious in the case of the petitioner. As regards service of grounds of detention, it was submitted that only receipt has been taken on the grounds to prove its service. The person concerned had to file his own affidavit. The same is missing.

03. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the detention order was passed on 09.03.2019 and the petitioner was taken into custody on 21.03.2019. The receipt of detention order, grounds of detention and the supporting material has been acknowledged by the petitioner himself. Entire material was supplied to him before he was taken into custody. The petitioner has knowledge of all the FIRs in which he is facing trial. Challan in all those cases have already been presented and at that stage entire supporting material was supplied to the accused. Hence, to plead that the petitioner is either not in knowledge of the material or the copies thereof are not available with him, is totally misconceived. Even with the petition, the petitioner has annexed number of documents regarding which he is raising the grouse regarding non receipt thereof.

04. The mother of the petitioner who is present in court stated that the petitioner was born in the year 1998, so he would be around 22 years of age at present, as is so mentioned even in the petition.

06. A perusal of the impugned order and the grounds shows that details of number of FIRs registered against the petitioner have not been mentioned. This only talks about the cases registered against the petitioner and not the status thereof as to whether the petitioner was convicted therein or was convicted or the trial was still pending, when he was arrested, when he was released or still in custody. Five of the six cases mentioned in the grounds are 5-6 years old. Even in the FIR which has been registered in the year 2018, though it has been mentioned that the petitioner was arrested. However, further status either of his release on bail or the stage of trial has not been mentioned. The grounds also do not suggest if the petitioner is in custody or there is likelihood of his release on bail.

07. The aforesaid facts clearly show that there was no application of mind by the authority concerned while passing the order of detention. The same is accordingly set-aside.

Jammu 31.12.2019 Raj Kumar

(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.