Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Kifayat Ul Lah Bukhari vs State Of Jk And Ors on 26 July, 2021
Author: Tashi Rabstan
Bench: Tashi Rabstan
S.no. 502 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Final Hearing
Cause List
AT SRINAGAR
...
WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 Kifayat ul Lah Bukhari ....... Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Adv.
Versus State of JK and Ors.
.........Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Asif Maqbool, Dy.AG, vice Mr. M.A.Chashoo, AAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE Judgement 26.07.2021 Oral:
1. District Magistrate, Shopian, by Order No. 34/DMS/PSA/2019 dated 10.08.2019, has placed one Kifayat-Ullah Bukhari S/o Mehrajh-ud-Din Bukhari R/O Chidren Bala Nowpora Shopian (for short "detenu") under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and lodging him in Central Jail, Srinagar. It is this order, of which petitioner is aggrieved and seeks quashment thereof on the grounds mentioned in writ petition on hand.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that the detenu was arrested by Police Station, Shopian, without any justification and cause in the month of January, 2019 in case FIR No. 7/2019 and was taken to Police Station, Shopian, and thereafter placed under preventive detention in terms of impugned order of detention.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by official respondents, vehemently resisting the petition and seeking dismissal thereof.
SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the xerox copy of detention record produced by counsel for the respondents.
5. Prior to adverting to case in hand, it would be apt to say that right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty, except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defence. However, framers of the Constitution have, by incorporating Article 22(5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim and object are to save society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case it would be dangerous for the people at large, to wait and watch as by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person, having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing general public to risk and causing colossal damage to life and property. It is, for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent a person bent upon to SHAMIM AHMAD DAR perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22(5) 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law.
6. The essential concept of preventive detention is that detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done, but to prevent him from doing it. The basis of detention is satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of likelihood of detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. The Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 198, points out that a criminal conviction, on the other hand, is for an act already done, which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case, a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof, beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something, which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in the Act, to prevent.
7. Acts or activities of individual or a group of individuals, prejudicial to the security of the State or public order, have magnitude of across-the-board disfigurement of societies. No court should tune out such activities, being swayed by passion of mercy. It is an obligation of the Court to constantly remind itself the right of society is never maltreated or marginalised by doings, an individual or set of individuals propagate and carry out.
8. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, guarantee safeguard to detenu to be informed, as soon as may be, of grounds on which order of detention is made, which led to subjective satisfaction of detaining authority and also to be afforded earliest opportunity of making representation against order of detention. Detenu is to SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 be furnished with sufficient particulars enabling him to make a representation, which on being considered, may obtain relief to him.
9. Detention record, produced by learned counsel for respondents, reveals that detention order was made on proper application of mind, to the facts of the case and detenu was delivered at the time of execution of detention order, the material and grounds of detention and also informed that he had a right to represent against his preventive detention. Perusal of 'Execution Report' of detention order depicts its execution. It is mentioned therein that in compliance to District Magistrate, Shopian, order of detention, Sub Inspector, Nazir Ahmad No.109228/ARP of Police Station, Shopian, executed the PSA warrant. Perusal of execution report also reveals that the contents of detention order/warrant and grounds of detention were read over and explained to detenu in the language which he fully understood and detenu has been provided copies of detention order, grounds of detention and other material so as to make a representation against his detention to the Government as well as detaining Authority and to this effect he has subscribed his signatures on the execution report.
10.Learned counsel for petitioner has stated that the allegations/grounds of detention are vague and the instances and the FIRs referred to in grounds of detention have no nexus with detenu and have been manoeuvred by police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining detenu.
11.Perusal of grounds of detention reveal that same are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. Detenu has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with Detaining Authority while passing detention order. Detaining Authority has narrated facts and figures that made it to exercise its powers under Section 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, and SHAMIM AHMAD DAR record subjective satisfaction that detenu was required to be placed under 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.
12.It is pertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court, in numerous decisions, has held that even one prejudicial act can be treated as sufficient for forming requisite satisfaction for detaining a person.
13.It is settled law that this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution has limited scope to scrutinizing whether detention order has been passed on material placed before it, it cannot go further and examine sufficiency of material. This Court does not sit in appeal over decision of detaining authority and cannot substitute its own opinion over that of detaining authority when grounds of detention are precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant. This Court can only examine grounds disclosed by the Government in order to see whether they are relevant to the object which the legislation has in view, that is, to prevent detenu from engaging in activities prejudicial to security of the State or maintenance of public order. In this regard I am fortified by law laid down by the by the Supreme Court in Ashutosh Lahiry v. State of Delhi and anr (1953) AIR SC 451; State of Gujarat v. Adam Kasam Bhaya (1981) 4 SCC 216; State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh (1990) 1 SCC 35; Union of India v. Arvind Shergill (2000) 7 SCC 601; Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipura, (2010) 9 SCC; and Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2012) 4 SCC 699.
14.Learned counsel for petitioner has also averred that detaining authority has made basis a solitary event in grounds of detention for slapping preventive detention upon detenu and that could not have been made use of for slapping detention on detenu. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Supreme Court, in several decisions, has held that even one prejudicial act can SHAMIM AHMAD DAR be treated as sufficient for forming requisite satisfaction for detaining a 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 person. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention may be, made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention and an order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution. Discharge or acquittal of a person will not preclude detaining authority from issuing a detention order. In this regard the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha's case (supra), while considering various facets concerning preventive detention, has observed:
"32. The power of preventive detention is qualitatively different from punitive detention. The power of preventive detention is a precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It does not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or may have been launched. An order of preventive detention may be, made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution.
33. Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive detention and prosecution are not synonymous. The purposes are different. The authorities are different. The nature of proceedings is different. In a prosecution an accused is sought to be punished for a past act. In preventive detention, the past act is merely the material for inference about the future course of probable conduct on the part of the detenu.
34. The recent decisions of this Court on this subject are many. The decisions in Borjahan Gorey v. State of W.B., Ashim Kumar Ray v. State of W.B.; Abdul Aziz v. District Magistrate, Burdwan and Debu Mahato v. State of W.B. correctly lay down the principles to be followed as to whether a detention order is valid or not. The decision in Biram Chand v. State of U. P., (1974) 4 SCC 573, which is a Division Bench decision of two learned Judges is contrary to the other Bench decisions consisting in each case of three learned Judges. The principles which can be broadly stated are these. First, merely because a detenu is liable to be tried in a criminal court for the commission of a criminal offence or to be proceeded against for preventing him from committing offences dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not by itself debar the Government from taking action for his detention under the Act. Second, the fact that the Police arrests a person and later on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to prosecute him under the Code of Criminal Procedure and even lodges a first information report may be no bar against the District Magistrate issuing an order under the preventive detention. Third, where the concerned person is actually in jail custody at the time when an order of SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 detention is passed against him and is not likely to be released for a fair length of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 time, it may be possible to contend that there could be no satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the likelihood of such a person indulging in activities which would jeopardise the security of the State or the public order. Fourth, the mere circumstance that a detention order is passed during the pendency of the prosecution will not violate the order. Fifth, the order of detention is a precautionary measure. It is based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based on his past conduct in the light of the surrounding circumstances."
15.Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanising the harsh authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State and/or maintenance of public order, must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation. These observations have been made by the Supreme Court in The Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and another v. Nabila and another, 2015 (12) SCC 127.
16.Here detenu has been caught in the act, which is prejudicial to the security of the State. He has been, what is apparent from grounds of detention, highly motivated offender and antinational and that detenu has great power of motivation which he would use to motivate the youths to join outfit organisations and, in this way, he would cause great prejudice to the security of the State. Grounds of detention also portray that detenu can act against any one whosoever he felt impediment in executing the plans of outfits whose aims and object is to challenge the security and the sovereignty of the State. If that be so, it is not possible to say that order of detention was passed by detaining authority with a view to subverting, supplanting or substituting the SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 criminal law of the land. The order of detention was plainly and indubitably with a view to preventing detenu from continuing the activities which are prejudicial to security of the State.
17.Germane to mention here that if one looks at the acts, the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, is designed for, is to prevent, they are all these acts that are prejudicial to security of the State or maintenance of public order. The acts, indulged in by persons, who act in concert with other persons and quite often such activity has national level ramifications. These acts are preceded by a good amount of planning and organisation by the set of people fascinated in tumultuousness. They are not like ordinary law and order crimes. If, however, in any given case a single act is found to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be quashed, but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot constitute the basis for detention. On the contrary, it does. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention. The said views and principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gautam Jain v. Union of India another AIR 2017 SC 230.
18. In the above milieu, it would be apt to refer to the observations made by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya AIR 1951 SC 157. The paragraph 5 of the judgement lays law on the point, which is profitable to be reproduced infra:
"5. It has to be borne in mind that the legislation in question is not an emergency legislation. The powers of preventive detention under this Act of 1950 are in addition to those contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, where preventive detention is followed by an inquiry or trial. By its very nature, preventive detention is aimed at preventing the commission of an offence or preventing the detained person from achieving a certain end. The authority making the order therefore cannot always be in possession of full detailed information when it passes the order and the information in its possession may fall far short of legal proof of any specific offence, although it may be indicative of a strong probability of the impending commission of a prejudicial act. Section a of the Preventive Detention Act therefore requires that the Central Government or the State Government must be satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any SHAMIM AHMAD DAR manner prejudicial to (1) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 powers, or the security of India, or (2) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or (8) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community ......... it is necessary So to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. According to the wording of section 3, therefore, before the Government can pass an order of preventive detention it must be satisfied with respect to the individual person that his activities are directed against one or other of the three objects mentioned in the section, and that the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to prevent him from acting in such a manner. The wording of the section thus clearly shows that it is the satisfaction of the Central Government or the State Government on the point which alone is necessary to be established. It is significant that while the objects intended to be defeated are mentioned, the different methods, acts or omissions by which that can be done are not mentioned, as it is not humanly possible to give such an exhaustive list. The satisfaction of the Government however must be based on some grounds. There can be no satisfaction if there are no grounds for the same. There may be a divergence of opinion as to whether certain grounds are sufficient to bring about the satisfaction required by the section. One person may think one way, another the other way. If, therefore, the grounds on which it is stated that the Central Government or the State Government was satisfied are such as a rational human being can consider connected in some manner with the objects which were to be prevented from being attained, the question of satisfaction except on the ground of mala fides cannot be challenged in a court. Whether in a particular case the grounds are sufficient or not, according to the opinion of any person or body other than the Central Government or the State Government, is ruled out by the wording of the section. It is not for the court to sit in the place of the Central Government or the State Government and try to deter- mine if it would have come to the same conclusion as the Central or the State Government. As has been generally observed, this is a matter for the subjective decision of the Government and that cannot be substituted by an objective test in a court of law. Such detention orders are passed on information and materials which may not be strictly admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act in a court, but which the law, taking into consideration the needs and exigencies of administration, has allowed to be considered sufficient for the subjective decision of the Government."
19. In the light of the aforesaid position of law settled by the Six-Judge Constitution Bench, way back in the year 1951, the scope of looking into the manner in which the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the detaining authority, is limited. This Court, while examining the material, which is made basis of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, would not act as a court of appeal and find fault with the satisfaction on the ground that on the basis of the material before detaining authority another view was possible.
20. The Courts do not even go into the question whether the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false. The reason for the rule is that to decide this, evidence may have to be taken by the Courts and that it is not the policy of the law of preventive detention. This matter lies within the competence of the advisory board.
SHAMIM AHMAD DAR2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019
21. Those who are responsible for national security or for maintenance of public order must be the sole judges of what the national security, public order or security of the State requires. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing. Justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction, which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Thus, any preventive measures, even if they involve some restraint or hardship upon individuals, as said by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and others AIR 1982 SC 1143, do not partake in any way of the nature of punishment. There is no reason why the Executive cannot take recourse to its power of preventive detention in those cases where the Court is genuinely satisfied that no prosecution could possibly succeed against detenu because he is a dangerous person who has overawed witnesses or against whom no one is prepared to depose.
22. Besides what has been discussed above, extremism, radicalism, terrorism have become the most worrying features of the contemporary life. Though violent behaviour is not new, the contemporary extremism, radicalism, terrorism in its full incarnation have obtained a different character and poses extraordinary threats to civilized world. The basic edifices of a modern State, like - democracy, State security, public order, rule of law, sovereignty and integrity, basic human rights, etcetera, are under attack of such extreme, radical and terror acts. Though phenomenon of extremism, radicalism, fanatism or terrorism is complex, a terrorist or such like an act is easily identifiable when it does occur. The core meaning of the term is clear even if its exact frontiers are not.
SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019
23. The threat that we are facing is now on an unprecedented global scale.
Terrorism has become a global threat with global effects. It has become a challenge to the whole community of civilized nations. Terrorist activities in one country may take on a transnational character, carrying out attacks across one border, receiving funding from private parties or a government across another, and procuring arms from multiple sources. Terrorism in a single country can readily become a threat to regional peace and security owing to its spill over ramifications. It is, therefore, difficult in the present context to draw sharp distinctions between domestic and international terrorism. Many happenings in recent past caused international community to focus on the issue of terrorism with renewed intensity. Anti-fanatism, anti-extremism, antiterrorism activities in the global level are mainly carried out through bilateral and multilateral cooperation among nations. It has, in such circumstances, become our collective obligation to save and protect the State and its subjects from uncertainty, melancholy and turmoil.
24. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanising the harsh authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State and/or maintenance of public order, must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or maintenance of public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation. These SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 observations have been made by the Supreme Court in The Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and another v. Nabila and another, 2015 (12) SCC 127.
25. Liberty of an individual has to be subordinated, within reasonable bounds, to the good of the people. The framers of the Constitution were conscious of the practical need of preventive detention with a view to striking a just and delicate balance between need and necessity to preserve individual liberty and personal freedom on the one hand, and security and safety of the country and interest of the society on the other hand. Security of State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community, prevention of smuggling and black-marketing activities, etcetera demand effective safeguards in the larger interests of sustenance of a peaceful democratic way of life.
26. In considering and interpreting preventive detention laws, courts ought to show greatest concern and solitude in upholding and safeguarding the fundamental right of liberty of the citizen, however, without forgetting the historical background in which the necessity--an unhappy necessity--was felt by the makers of the Constitution in incorporating provisions of preventive detention in the Constitution itself. While no doubt it is the duty of the Court to safeguard against any encroachment on the life and liberty of individuals, at the same time the authorities who have the responsibility to discharge the functions vested in them under the law of the country should not be impeded or interfered with without justification. It is well settled that if detaining authority is satisfied that taking into account nature of antecedent activities of detenu, it is likely that after his release from custody he would indulge in prejudicial activities and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from engaging in such activities. [See: State of W.B. v. Ashok SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 Dey, 1972 (1) SCC 199; Bhut Nath Mete v. State of W.B., 1974 (1) SCC 645; ADM v. Shivakant Shukla 1976 (2) SCC 521; A. K. Roy v. Union of India, 1982 (1) SCC 271; Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India, 1990 (1) SCC 746; Kamarunnisa v. Union of India and another, 1991 (1) SCC 128; Veeramani v. State of T.N. 1994 (2) SCC 337; Union of India v. Paul Manickam and another, 2003 (8) SCC 342; and Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State of Manipur and others, 2012 (7) SCC 181].
27. The satisfaction of detaining authority that detenu is already in custody and he is likely to be released on bail and on being released, he is likely to indulge in the same prejudicial activities is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The Supreme Court in the case of Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and another, 2006 (5) SCC 676, has held that satisfaction of detaining authority, coming to conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail is "subjective satisfaction", based on materials and normally subjective satisfaction is not to be interfered with.
28. Observing that the object of preventive detention is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept and to prevent him from doing so, the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumra Goyal v. Union of India and others, 2005 (8) SCC 276, and ingeminated in the judgement dated 18th July 2019, rendered by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1064 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) no.5459 of 2019 titled Union of India and another v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, has held that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent antisocial and subversive elements from imperilling welfare of the country or security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquillity or from indulging in antinational activities or smuggling activities SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so.
29.Bare reading of detention record produced by respondents would reveal that detenu had been in constant touch with the elements who propagate the ideology of cessation of Jammu and Kashmir from Union of India, whose continued inculcation of reactionary ideas with an infection of secessionist ideology, hatred towards law enforcement agencies and legally established system turned detenu a stanch and hard core OGW of various militant organizations operative in district Shopian. It is also mentioned in the grounds of detention that detenu has been pursuing antinational activities which are aiming at cessation of territory of J&K from Union of India and he being fervid follower of secessionist ideology as is propagated by militant organizations like HM and LeT and that this ideology pursued of merger of J&K with the domain of State of Pakistan, took his illegal activities to higher and newer heights which turned him as a hard core OGW, motivator and sympathiser of militants. Detenu is said to be motivating innocent youth to indulge in antinational activities and one such instance of luring a vulnerable youth to militancy is a boy by the name of Sahil Malik S/O. Hamid Malik R/O Bagander, Alyalpora, who was motivated and recruited by detenu in the militant ranks and is active militant of banned organization of HM. In the grounds of detention detenu has been shown involved in as many as seven cases/FIRs, which weighed the detaining authority to pass impugned SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 WP (Crl) No. 296/2019 detention order. In such circumstances, suffice it is to say that there had been material before detaining authority to come to conclusion and hence, it cannot be said that subjective satisfaction of detaining authority was wrongly arrived at or grounds of detention are self-contradictory or vague. The role of detenu has been specifically described.
30.Submission of learned counsel for petitioner, as ingeminated in writ petition as well, that detaining authority has not mentioned in grounds of detention that whether detenu has moved a bail application before competent court or not, is entirely hollow. Grounds of detention unambiguously mention that detenu has been admitted to bail by competent court.
31. In the backdrop of foregoing discussion, the petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
32. Detention record be returned to learned counsel for respondents.
(Tashi Rabstan) Judge Srinagar 26.07.2021 "Shamim Dar"
Whether approved for reporting: Yes SHAMIM AHMAD DAR 2021.07.30 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document