Daily Diary Reports Must Contain Details Of 'Specific Activities' That Necessitated Preventive Detention: J&K High Court

Allowing a habeas corpus plea of the detenue, Justice Rajnesh Oswal said that the absence of essential details within such documents renders them insufficient to uphold the legitimacy of a preventive detention order.

Assailing his detention order through Counsel Rajnesh Singh Parihar, the detenue had claimed that only the detention order and dossier were provided, with no access to other materials relied upon by the authorities. The grounds of detention were also argued to be vague, failing to disclose any activity threatening public health and welfare. The petitioner had further contended that there was no live nexus between the incidents in the FIR and the impugned order.

On the contrary, the respondents argued that the detention order was based on three FIRs related to drug trafficking and two entries in the Daily Diary of the Police Station, Udhampur. The authorities asserted that procedural safeguards were meticulously followed during both the issuance and execution of the detention order.

Delving deep into the detention record, Justice Oswal noted there was a significant time gap of one year and three months between the petitioner's last alleged illegal activity and the issuance of the detention order. Referring 'Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik vs. State of Maharashtra 2012,' the court held that such a delay could sever the live link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of the detention.

“On this ground only, the order of detention is not sustainable in the eyes of law”, the bench said.

Justice Oswal also scrutinized the DDRs, emphasizing that they lacked necessary details regarding the petitioner's specific activities justifying the detention order.

“Both these DDRs are vague and bereft of the necessary details in respect of the specific activities of the petitioner, which necessitated the issuance of detention order and as such, these DDRs could not have relied upon by the respondent No. 2 while issuing the order of detention”, the court recorded.

In order to cement the law on the issue the bench also found it worthwhile to record the observation of the Court in ‘Krishan Lal alias Lundi vs. Union Territory of J&K’ wherein it observed,

“The daily diary reports being vague and bereft of details of the activities of the petitioner which necessitated the issuance of the detention order, could not have been relied upon by the detaining authority i.e. respondent no. 2 while issuing the order of detention”.

In light of the observed deficiencies, Justice Oswal declared the detention order unsustainable and subsequently quashed it. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Case Title: Kewal Krishan Vs Financial Commissioner ACS Home Department and ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 286

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Rajnesh Singh Parihar, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment