STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Moksha Khajurai Kazmi upheld detention under Public Safety Act (PSA) of Royal Singh. While upholding judgment of writ Court, DB observed that 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,” the Court observed.
DB further observed that in instant case, the file revealed that on basis of the dossier submitted by SSP Jammu, the District Magistrate, Jammu after having satisfied passed the order of detention under Section 8(1)(a) of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978. Further, a perusal of execution report revealed that the order of detention, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier of detention, copies of FIRs, statements of witnesses and other related documents (total 188 leaves) were supplied to the appellant-detenu and he acknowledged the same by signing in English. It also revealed that all the relevant documents were read over and explained to him in the language, which he understood fully. It also divulged that detenu was informed that he can make a representation to the government as well as the detaining authority. DB was of the view that the grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenu was informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing the detention order. “The detaining authority has narrated facts and figures that made the authority to exercise its powers under the J&K Public Safety Act and record subjective satisfaction that detenu was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to peace and public order. We are saying so because the file reveals that the appellant-detenu has already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the year August, 2020, although he was enlarged on bail by the Apex Court. Not only this, the file further reveals that as many as nine different FIRs came to be registered against the appellant-detenu in different police stations of Jammu Zone, i.e., (1) FIR 171/2005 under Sections 341/323 of RPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu; (2) FIR 264/2005 under Section 382 of RPC registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu; (3) FIR 75/2007 under Sections 341/323/382/34 of RPC registered at Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu; (4) FIR 44/2009 under Sections 307/341 of RPC and 4/25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Peer Mitha, Jammu; (5) FIR 247/2009 under Sections 302/34 of RPC and 3/25/27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu; (6) FIR 31/2018 under Sections 307 of RPC and 3/25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu; (7) FIR 208/2018 under Sections 382/401/120-B of RPC and 66-D of IT Act registered at Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu; (8) FIR 91/2021 under Sections 307/120-B, 149 of RPC and 3/25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu and (9) FIR 10/2022 under Sections 341/382/109/34 of IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Peer Mitha, Jammu. Thus, it seems the appellant-detenu is a hardcore criminal, history sheeter, habitual in indulging criminal activities, such as, murder, attempt to murder, assault, carrying illegal arms/ammunition etc., thus, has become a terror figure among the people of the area and the actions taken against him under the ordinary law from time to time have not been proved to be deterrent. It seems the appellant -detenu instead of mending his ways has continuously been indulging in criminal activities and has not shown any respect for the law of the land, as such the appellant-detenu has created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area,” the Court observed.
DB observed that contention of counsel for appellant-detenu that detention order did not survive as appellant-detenu was already under arrest when the detention order was passed, the record revealed that the dossier was issued on March 9, 2022 by the SSP, Jammu, when, as contended, on the same day itself the custody of appellant-detenu was also handed over to the SHO, Police Station Bahu Fort, Jammu. “We do not find any force in this contention of learned counsel for appellant-detenu. Otherwise too, in law there is no bar in passing a detention order against a person who is already in custody in respect of a criminal offence if the detaining authority is subjectively satisfied that detention order should be passed and that there must be cogent material before the authority passing the detention order for inferring that the detenu was likely to be released on bail,” the Court observed.