Court quashes detention of Shopian man under PSA

Srinagar, Jul 2: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the detention of a man from South Kashmir’s Shopian under Public Safety Act.
The detenue Muhammad Maqbool Ganaie son of Muhammad Abdullah, a resident of Chitragam Shopian through his Counsel Advocate Bashir Ahmed Tak had challenged his detention under the Public Safety Act on the grounds that neither the detenue was provided any material nor any reason was given for this detention.
The petitioner (detenue) as per news agency Kashmir News Trust is currently lodged at District Jail Rajouri. He had been detained under PSA when District Magistrate Shopian issued an order vide number 88/DMS/PSA/2021 Dated 18-10-2021.
The petitioner contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, in as much as the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It was contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It was further contended that the Constitutional procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, in as much as the whole of the material which formed the basis of the impugned detention order has not been supplied to the petitioner.
After hearing the arguments and counter-arguments, the court of Justice Sanjay Dhar stated that it is clear that an order of preventive detention becomes unsustainable in law if the detenue has not been provided with all the material that has formed the basis of his detention. As already noted, in the instant case, the copy of the police dossier has not been furnished to the detenue. Hence, the impugned order of detention has been rendered unsustainable in law.
“For these reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from preventive custody forthwith, unless, of course, he is not required in connection with any other case.” (KNT)