Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ranjeet Singh vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Its on 14 September, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 04.09.2023
Pronounced on: 14.09.2023
WP(Crl.) No. 30/2023
1. Ranjeet Singh .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, Advocate
Vs
1. Union Territory of J&K through its
Secretary to Government Home
Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/Jammu.
2. Principal Secretary to Government Home
Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar/Jammu.
3. District Magistrate, Jammu
4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu.
5. Superintendent of Central Jail, Kot
Bhalwal, Jammu.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) By the medium of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged order No 03 of 2023 dated 14.03.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu (for short "the Detaining Authority"), whereby he has been taken into preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
2) It is contended in the petition that the impugned detention order is perverse and is not based upon any material. It has been further contended that 2 WP (Crl.)30/2023 the petitioner has not been provided the material on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated in the language which he understands, thereby prejudicing his right to file a representation against the detention order. It has also been contended that the petitioner has not been informed about his right to file a representation against the impugned order of detention. According to the petitioner, the impugned order of detention has been passed by the Detaining Authority without application of mind inasmuch as the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of the police dossier. Lastly, it has been contended that there were no compelling reasons for the Detaining Authority to pass the impugned order of detention as the petitioner has been booked in substantive offences.
3) The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. In their counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that they have observed all the constitutional and statutory safeguards while passing the impugned order of detention against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that whole of the material on the basis of which the detention order has been passed has been supplied to the petitioner and the grounds of detention have been explained to the petitioner in the language he understands. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner is a habitual criminal and his activities have created terror and fear among the local people. This has compelled the respondents to pass order of preventive detention against the petitioner. It has also been contended that the petitioner has been informed about his right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention. The respondents have produced the detention record to lend support to their contentions.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused detention record. 3
WP (Crl.)30/2023
5) The first ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds of detention are verbatim copy of police dossier, which exhibits non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. If we have a look at the grounds of detention recorded in the impugned order of detention, it does appear that to the extent of narration, the factual aspects of the FIRs, which find mention in the order of detention, there is reproduction of the contents of the police dossier but beyond this it cannot be stated that grounds of detention mentioned in the order of detention are in any way similarly worded as the police dossier. The Detaining Authority has narrated the facts, which led to the registration of as many as five FIRs, bearing Nos. 144/2017 of Police Station, Kanachak, 44/2019 of Police Station, Kanachak, 118/2022 of Police Station, Gharota, 122/2022 of Police Station, Nawabad and 30/2023 of Police Station, Akhnoor. It has been recorded by the Detaining Authority that it has drawn satisfaction that the detention of the petitioner is required for maintenance of public order.
6) It cannot be stated that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the impugned order of detention. Merely, because there is similarity between the wording used by the Detaining Authority while narrating the facts leading to registration of FIRs with the language used in the police dossier, does not mean that there has been non- application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Once the grounds of detention exhibit application of mind by the District Magistrate, the similarity of language used while narrating the facts leading to registration of various FIRs, becomes immaterial. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is without any merit.
4
WP (Crl.)30/2023
7) It has been next contended that the petitioner has not been informed about his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority and to the Government. In this regard, if we have a look at the execution report, which bears the signatures of the petitioner, it is clearly indicated therein that the petitioner has been informed about his right to make a representation to the Government as well as to the Detaining Authority. As per the receipt executed by the petitioner, he has received order of detention (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (04 leaves), dossier of detention (06 leaves) and copies of FIRs, statements of witnesses and other related material (87 leaves). In the notice of detention, which the petitioner is shown to have received, it is clearly indicated that the petitioner has been informed about his right to make a representation to the Government as also about his right to make a representation to the Detaining Authority. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is not substantiated from the detention record produced by the respondents.
8) That takes up to the contention of the petitioner that he has not been provided the material on the basis of which the detention order has been formulated in the language, which he understands. Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 mandates that the grounds of detention should be explained to a detenue in the language he understands. In the execution report, it has been clearly indicated that the grounds of detention have been explained to the petitioner in Hindi/Dogri languages. Thus, the respondents have adhered to the statutory mandate of explaining the grounds of detention to the petitioner in the language he understands. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is without any merit. 5
WP (Crl.)30/2023
9) Lastly, it has been argued that there were no compelling reasons for the respondents to pass the impugned order of detention. As per the grounds of detention, the petitioner has been found involved in as many as five FIRs in the last five years. These FIRs relate to the offences of rioting, attempt to murder and Arms Act. In the latest FIR No. 30/2023, the petitioner has been granted interim bail as is clear from the grounds of detention and police dossier. Having regard to the nature of the offences, which the petitioner is alleged to have committed and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been granted bail in all these cases, the wisdom of the Detaining Authority in putting the petitioner under preventive detention, cannot be questioned. The fact that the petitioner has been a repeat offender of similar nature of crimes, justifies the action of the Detaining Authority in passing the order of detention against him. Even otherwise, this Court in these to proceedings cannot sit as a Court of appeal to review the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard too is without any merit.
10) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
11) The record be returned to the learned Dy. AG for the respondents.
(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE Jammu 14.09.2023 Karam Chand/Secy Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No