Sanjeev Kumar JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
1. Impugned in this petition is Order No. 46/DMA/PSA/2018 dated 03.08.2017, passed by District Magistrate, Anantnag - respondent No. 2 herein, whereby Shahid Muneeb Mir adopted son of Mohammad Akber resident of Sumbruna Achabal A/P Shangus, District, Anantnag (for brevity "detenu"), has been placed under preventive detention, on the grounds set out in petition in hand.
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents, vehemently resisting the petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that detenu was arrested by police station Achabal from his home on 17.07.2018 and was implicated in case FIR No. 49/2018. Bail was granted in favour of detenu on 23.07.2018, by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Shangus. However, detenu was not released and was implicated in another case, bearing FIR No. 142/2017. The detenu applied for bail, which was granted on 03.08.2018, but he was not released and was kept in custody for several days. While being in custody, detenu was shifted to District Jail Kathua on 07.08.2018, to be detained under preventive detention in terms of impugned detention order. Learned counsel further states that detenu was already admitted to bail in case FIR No. 49/2018 on 23.07.2018, but this important fact has not been reflected by detaining authority in grounds of detention, which vitiates impugned detention order. The alleged activity, made mention of in grounds of detention, which is said to have been the basis for passing detention order, had occurred on 05.04.2018 whereas impugned detention order has been passed on 03.08.2018, i.e. after a delay of about four months. According to learned counsel, the unexplained delay between alleged activity and order of detention has snapped proximity of order of detention with the time of its necessity. He also asserts that detenu was not furnished copy of dossier and other connected material, copies of FIR(s), statement(s) under Section 161 Cr.P.C., seizure memos of cases mentioned in grounds of detention, so as to make him enable to make an effective representation to government as well as detaining authority. He has also vehemently stated that allegation reflected in grounds of detention are vague and do not justify passing of detention order inasmuch as detaining authority has not given any reasonable justification to pass detention order and therefore impugned order is pregnant with complete non-application of mind on part of detaining authority. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon Razia Umar Bakshi v. Union of India and others MANU/SC/0226/1980 : AIR 1980 SC 1751; Anant Sakharam Raut v. State of Maharashtra and another MANU/SC/0052/1986 : AIR 1987 SC 137; Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0470/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 3051; Mohammad Ashraf Khan v. State & Ors. 2010 (I) SLJ 365; State of Maharashtra and others v. Santosh Shankar Acharya, MANU/SC/0472/2000 : (2000) 7 SCC 463; and Tariq Ahmad Dar v. State of J & K & Ors., MANU/JK/0556/2017 : 2017 Legal Eagle 131.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has insisted that all the technical requirements had been complied with, more particularly as required under J & K PSA, which provide that earliest opportunity of making a representation be provided to detenu.
6. Reverence of life is irrefraga........