Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup 17th June 2024 - 23rd June 2024

Rayees Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 160

Aaftab Hussain Dar Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 161

Mumtaz Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 162

Suhail Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 163

Dr. Junaid Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 164

Manzoor Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 165

Judgments/Orders:

'State Security' No Longer Valid Ground For Preventive Detention In J&K Since Reorganization As Union Territory: J&K High Court

Case Title: Rayees Ahmad Khan Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 160

Quashing a preventive detention order the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declared that the term "security of the State" is obsolete in the context of Jammu and Kashmir since its reorganization as a Union Territory in 2019.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has clarified,

“.. Under the J&K Reorganization (Adaptation of State Laws) Order, 2020, “Security of the State” obtaining in section 8(1)(a)(i) came to be substituted by the statutory ground of “security of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir”.. therefore, an order so passed with the said expression “Security of the State” being retained as it is, technically disqualifies to be a valid order of preventive detention against a detenue”

'Unlawful Invasion Of Fundamental Rights': J&K High Court Quashes Illegal Detention, Orders ₹2 Lakh Compensation

Case Title: Aaftab Hussain Dar Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 161

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh ordered the Union Territory administration to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation to Aftab Hussain Dar, a 22-year-old student, after quashing his preventive detention, declaring it illegal and unconstitutional.

Shortcomings Of Investigative Agency Cannot Hinder Framing Of Charges Based On Evidence Brought On Record: J&K High Court

Case Title: Mumtaz Ahmad Mir Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 162

Highlighting the duties of a Court while framing a charge against an accused the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that investigative shortcomings should not prevent the framing of charges based on the evidence presented.

Quashing an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (AD&J) Baramulla, directing framing of charges under Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) a bench of Justice Puneet Gupta instead directed framing of charges under Section 302 IPC (murder) against the accused.

Constitutional Courts Are Guardians Of Citizen's Fundamental Rights, Must Be Extra Sensitive When Personal Liberty Is Violated: J&K High Court

Case Title: Suhail Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 163

Quashing a preventive detention order under J&K Public Safety Act 1978 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court sounded a note of caution for detaining authorities who assume that their powers under the act are unchecked.

A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti has stated that subjective satisfaction of the authorities for issuing detention orders cannot be construed as a matter of wordplay while assuming that they have an omnipotent power and authority to subject any person to suffer preventive detention at any given point of time.

S. 8(8) PMLA | Bonafide Individuals Suffering Loss Due To Money Laundering Can Approach Special Court To Restore Attached Property: J&K High Court

Case Title: Dr. Junaid Vs Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 164

Reinforcing the protections for individuals who, acting in good faith, suffer losses due to offences of money laundering the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that they are entitled to approach the Special Court to seek restoration of the attached properties.

Citing Sec 8 Sub Sec 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed,

“.. that a person, who has acted in good faith and has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering, despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is otherwise not involved in money laundering, would be a claimant entitled to invoke the second proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 8 of the Act of 2002”.

Non-Mention Of Bail Granted To Accused In FIR-Based Detention Order Renders Detention Illegal: J&K High Court

Case Title: Manzoor Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 165

Quashing a preventive detention order the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has declared that once an FIR is the core ground for passing a detention order, the non-mentioning of bail granted in relation to that FIR renders the detention order illegal.