HC refuse to quash PSA of LeT OGW
JKUT (Jammu), November-08-2021-( JNF):- Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur of Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petition filed by Zahoor Ahmed Parray on over ground worker of LeT organization challenging his detention under PSA.
In Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 3.01.2020, passed by the District Magistrate, Bandipora, whereby in purported exercise of powers vested in him in terms of Clause(a) of Section 8 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, he has directed detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner, which is prejudicial to the security of the State.
The basis of the order of detention as reflected in the grounds of detention are that the petitioner is an active over ground worker of LeT organization and provides logistic support and shelter to the terrorists of the LeT organization. It is also alleged that the petitioner guides the active militants in Hajin area and has been orchestrating and organizing violent mobs for the enforcement of hartal calendar of the Hurriyat and thus acted against the sovereignty, integrity, peace and tranquility of the Union of India.
Not only this, the petitioner has been booked in a series of FIRs, namely, FIR No.15/2014 under Section 148, 149, 307, 353, 332, 336, 427 RPC with Police Station Hajin. It is alleged that the petitioner and his associated had taken out an unlawful procession from Hajin and had started pelting stones upon police/security personnel deployed for maintenance of law and order duty, with an intention to the kill them and cause damage to Government/private property. In the said incident,
grievous injuries are stated to have been inflicted to the security and police personnel. The said FIR is stated to have been resulted in filing of a charge-sheet in the Court of competent jurisdiction.
Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur after While dismissing the petition observed that Oon a perusal of the report, it can be seen that the petitioner was served with a copy of the order of detention, with the grounds of detention as also copies of the FIR. Not only this, the execution report also suggests that the documents were read-over and explained to the detenue in Urdu and Kashmiri languages, which the petitioner understood fully. Signatures were also obtained by the executing officer. On a perusal of the signatures, it can be seen that the petitioner has signed in the English language. The execution report further suggests that the detenue was informed that he could make a representation to the Government. Besides this, in the grounds of detention, it was also specifically provided that the petitioner could make a representation to the Government/detaining authority against the order of detention, if he so chose. If the execution report is to be believed, which suggests that the documents were read-over to the detenue, it would have certainly been brought to the notice of the detenue that he had a right of making a representation either to the Government or to the detaining authority. On a perusal of the records and the pleadings on record, it does not appear that the order of detention suffers from any non-application of mind or that it suffers from any procedural irregularity. JNF