Background: The case revolves around a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of the detained petitioner, challenging the preventive detention order. The petitioner was detained based on four First Information Reports (FIRs) ranging from property trespass to forgery and attempted murder. These FIRs, some dating back more than a decade, were cited as reasons for the detention under the Public Safety Act.
Court’s Critique: Justice Atul Sreedharan, presiding over the case, strongly criticized the District Magistrate’s reasoning, describing it as “twisted” and “unjustifiable.” The court found the Magistrate’s assertions that the petitioner posed a grave threat to public safety and state security to be unsupported by evidence. The judgment emphasized that preventive detention should not be based on stale or interpersonal disputes that do not pose a significant threat to public order or security.
Analysis of FIRs:
- First FIR (2012): The court deemed this case, which involved property trespass, as stale and noted that it was only being considered twelve years after registration.
- Second FIR (2019): This FIR, involving forgery, was also dismissed as stale and not posing any direct threat to public safety.
- Third FIR (2021): While this FIR included charges of attempted murder under Section 307 IPC, the court noted that the charge sheet was filed only after the detention order, undermining its relevance to the case.
- Fourth FIR (2023): This FIR was the immediate cause for detention, involving forgery-related offences. However, the court found that these did not justify preventive detention on grounds of public safety or state security.
Judicial Observations: Justice Sreedharan criticized the vagueness and misleading language of the detention order, accusing the District Magistrate of attempting to justify an unjustifiable decision. The court emphasized that preventive detention should be used sparingly and with proper justification, ensuring that the detaining authority applies its mind to the specifics of the case.
Role of the Union Territory Counsel: The Additional Advocate General, Rajesh Thapa, representing the Union Territory, argued that the petitioner had a long criminal history. However, the court found that the detaining authority had not adequately considered whether the petitioner was likely to receive bail or had already been granted bail in the ongoing cases.
Judgment: The court ordered the immediate release of the petitioner and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the District Magistrate, to be paid personally within two weeks. This ruling serves as a stern reminder to authorities about the importance of following due process and ensuring that preventive detention is not misused.
Conclusion: The Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties against arbitrary state actions. It highlights the need for meticulous scrutiny in cases of preventive detention, ensuring that such measures are justified and supported by substantial evidence. This ruling reaffirms the importance of upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the application of preventive detention laws.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.