No FIR Against Detenu, Record Appears To Be Manipulated: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a preventive detention order passed against a person in absence of any FIR against him. A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar remarked,

"Surprisingly, when no FIR is shown to have been registered against the petitioner, then how come 27 leaves of FIR etc. have been provided to him. This exhibits total non-application of mind and overzealousness on the part of the detaining authority, which casts serious doubt about the authenticity of the receipt."

The bench also noted that the petitioner-detenu was accused of being associated with militant groups however, there was no mention in the dossier as to the particulars of the place and the identity of the militants/terrorists, on whose directions the petitioner was allegedly working.

"Thus, the grounds, being vague and lacking in material particulars, the detenue could not have made an effective representation against his detention. Therefore, there has been violation of constitutional guarantees envisaged under Article 22(5) of the Constitution," it added.

The detention order was issued by the District Magistrate of Anantnag based on detention record comprising 36 leaves of material including detention order (01 leaf), Notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (02 leaves), dossier of detention (05 leaves), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related relevant documents (27 leaves). The respondent-authority insisted that the activities of the detenue were highly prejudicial to the security of the State.

Court however said the documents appear to have been manipulated inasmuch as petitioner was furnished with dossier of detention (05 leaves) whereas, as per the detention record, the police dossier comprises of only four leaves.

The court also noted that the petitioner had submitted a representation through his father, which was received by the respondents. However, there was no evidence to suggest that the representation had been considered or that any decision had been conveyed to the petitioner. This non-consideration of the representation was deemed a violation of Constitutional safeguards.

As such, the Court directed the immediate release of the detenue from preventive custody.

Case Title: Abid Hussain Ganie Vs UT of J&K

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 181

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment