news details |
|
|
| HC uphold PSA of Anti-national | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 27: Justice MA Chowdhary upheld the detention under PSA of Mohd Younis Mir who is a part of LeT terror module.
The grounds of detention formulated by the detaining authority inter alia would show that the detenue was found to be resorting to intensive stone pelting at encounter sites. According to the detaining authority the detenue has spoiled the youth of the area by motivating them for anti national activities. On 19.07.2021, during search operation, the detenue was arrested from village Budibugh Choon Budgam and one Chinese Pistol along-with magazine and eight live rounds were recovered from his possession by 53 RR and 43 Bn CRPF, who disclosed that he was part of a terror module of prescribed LeT outfit and four terror associates with two grenades, 06 live rounds of AK-47 and 10 posters of LeT outfit, were arrested. Accordingly, he was apprehended on 19.07.2021 in a case FIR No. 219/2021 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 7/25 Arms Act; 18, 19, 20, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which was proved against him. The detaining authority was, thus, of the opinion that it has become imperative to detain the detenue in preventive detention with a view to prevent him from carrying out anti national and subversive activities.
Justice MA Chowdhary after hearing both the sides observed that detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive, but a preventive action, acknowledged object of which being to prevent anti-social and subversive elements from endangering the welfare of the country or security of the nation or from disturbing public tranquility or from indulging in anti-national activities or smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. Rulings on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing so. With these observations, the High Court dismissed the petition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
