Cannot Come To Rescue Of Proclaimed Offender Seeking Quashing Of Detention Order At Pre-Execution Stage: J&K High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the constitutional courts have a limited jurisdiction to interfere with the detention order at the pre-execution stage. It added that such remedy cannot be even otherwise be sought by a person who is evading the legal process of the court.The petitioner sought to challenge the detention order at the pre-execution stage stating that earlier...
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that the constitutional courts have a limited jurisdiction to interfere with the detention order at the pre-execution stage. It added that such remedy cannot be even otherwise be sought by a person who is evading the legal process of the court.
The petitioner sought to challenge the detention order at the pre-execution stage stating that earlier detention order was quashed by the court. The court held it can interfere with the detention order at the pre-execution stage only when it is passed by detaining authority for wrongful purpose or vague and irrelevant grounds.Justice Sanjay Dhar said that not only is the detention order based on previously lodged FIRs, which are eight in number but the petitioner has admitted to have been declared as an proclaimed offender and in consideration such facts and circumstances, the court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner.
The court said that even otherwise The petitioner had a history of serious criminal activities, including attempt to murder, assault, rioting, land grabbing, and Arms Act violations.
The court relied on Subash Popat Lal Dave judgment wherein Supreme Court has held that courts can interfere with preventive detention at the pre-execution stage only on specific grounds.
These grounds include when order is not passed under the Act under which is purported to have been passed, (ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person, (iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose, (iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds or (v) that the authority which passed had no authority to do so.
BACKGROUND:
The petitioner challenged a preventive detention order issued against him under by the District Magistrate, Jammu. The petitioner had previously been detained under PSA in 2020 based on five FIRs. However, this detention was quashed by the High Court in September 2020 due to non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
After the quashment, three more FIRs were registered against the petitioner in 2021 and 2022. The petitioner claimed that he had reached a settlement with the complainants in these FIRs and that his fresh detention was unjustified.
The police affixed a proclamation under Sections 84/85 BNSS at his residence in September 2024, declaring him an absconder and requiring him to surrender before the District Magistrate and also issued a warrant of detention which is challenged under present petition.
APPEARANCE
Rahul Raina Advocate for petitioner
Rajesh kr. Thapa AAG for Respondents
Case-title: Mohd. Asgar @ tola vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (JKL) 101
