JAMMU, July: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the detention under PSA of Surjeet Singh alias Sonu and imposed Rs 10000 cost on District Magistrate Jammu.
After hearing Advocate Satinder Gupta for the petitioner, Justice Atul Sreedharan observed, “all the cases with the exception of FIR No. 4/2021 are interpersonal in nature which does not even by a wrong shot involves the security of the State or public order”.
“In Paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention, the District Magistrate, Jammu holds “it is pertinent to mention here that the crime committed by the subject is grave threat to the security of the State”, as to how the District Magistrate comes to this fanciful and puerile finding is a mystery. No justification for holding so has been given”, High Court said, adding “further, the twisted and the contorted reasoning of the District Magistrate, Jammu continues in Paragraph 7 which deserves to be reproduced in its entirety”.
“Whereas, it is necessary to note that the “maintenance of the public order” always occurs in juxtapose with public safety. Repeated offences committed by the subject who inflict major harm and injury on public is not only prejudicial to the public safety and public order but also has potential to sky ball and impact overall security of the state. Since there is a reasonable probability of likelihood of the subject acting in a manner similar to his past conduct, it would be dangerous for the people at large, to wait and watch as by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing general public to risk and causing colossal”, read Paragraph 7.
Justice Atul Sreedharan observed, “Paragraph 7 reflects the twisted reasoning and thought process of the District Magistrate and deserves to be deprecated strongly. It is vague and the language used is intended to confuse rather than convince and it reflects an anxiety on the part of the District Magistrate, Jammu to justify the unjustifiable”.
The counsel for the Union Territory, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner is a recidivist and has been involved in a life of crime for a long time. However, when asked by High Court to demonstrate from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority had applied its mind and arrived at conclusion that the freedom of the petitioner would imperil the State on account of precise and verifiable reasons coupled with the fact that he has been already enlarged on bail or that the probability of him being recipient of bail being very high, his preventive detention was necessary, counsel for the Union Territory was unable to demonstrate from the grounds of detention that such a finding of probable bail or bail already having been granted was a factor that bears in the minds of the detaining authority.
Under these circumstances, Justice Atul Sreedharan allowed the petition and ordered that the petitioner shall be set forth at liberty. Court also ordered that a cost of Rs 10,000 be imposed on the District Magistrate, Jammu personally which shall be paid to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a petition of contempt against the District Magistrate, Jammu.
