Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Manzoor Ahmad Najar vs State Of J&K; And Others on 21 December, 2017

Author: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir

Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir

Serial No.03
Regular List

                          HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                                    AT SRINAGAR
        HCP No.164/2017
                                                                 Date of Dec: 21.12.2017
               Manzoor Ahmad Najar             Vs.            State of J&K &ors.
        Coram:
             Hon'ble Mr Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Judge.

        Appearance:
        For the Petitioner(s):    Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Adv.
        For the Respondent(s): Mr. M. A. Beigh, AAG.

        i)    Whether approved for reporting in                    Yes/No
               Law journals etc.:
        ii)    Whether approved for publication
               in press:                                           Yes/No

        1)     Detenue in connection with case registered as FIR No.216/2016 P/S

Chadoora for commission of offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 120-B RPC, 7/25, 7/27 Arms Act had been arrested in the year 2013. He was ordered to be released on bail pursuant to the order of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, dated 22.04.2017 but instead of releasing him, has been taken into preventive custody pursuant to order No.DMB/PSA/12 dated 19.05.2017 so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

2) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenue was in judicial custody from the year 2013 till 22.04.2017. He had not been released. When he was in custody from 2013 till 19.05.2017, how could detaining authority say that preventive custody is necessary. When for last four years detenue was in custody, there could be no scope or chance for him to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

3) Next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the concession of bail was granted in favour of the detenue by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam, on 22.04.2017, he was never released, instead was taken into preventive custody on 19.05.2017. Even otherwise same position is supported by the fact that no activity attributable to the detenue is shown for the period 22.04.2017 to 19.05.2017. How subjective satisfaction has been derived is not forthcoming and in case it would have been so, what prevented the respondent authorities in not seeking cancellation of concession of bail as has been granted to him by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Budgam. Was it not open for them to apply before the said Court for cancellation of bail. Same has not been done, instead they have adopted the route of preventive custody which in the stated circumstances was totally impermissible.

4) The initial period of six months of preventive custody has expired on 19 th November, 2017. Whether thereafter it has been extended is not brought to the notice of the Court.

5) Be that as it may. Otherwise also, order of detention, for the stated reasons, is unsustainable, as such, quashed. The detenue be released from the preventive custody if not required in connection with any other case.

6) Detention records as produced be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.

7)      Disposed of as above.

                                              (Mohammad Yaqoob Mir)
                                                   Judge


Srinagar
21.12.2017
"Bhat Altaf, PS"



HCP No.164/2017                                                         Page 2 of 2