Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 8: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed three separate habeas corpus petitions challenging preventive detention orders under the Public Safety Act, holding that detention grounds relating to security of the State cannot be termed vague when they are supported by specific material and detention record.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed three separate judgments while upholding the preventive detention orders issued against Abdul Najam Saqib @ Saqib, Tanveer Ahmad Najar and Akash Ahmad Lone. The Court observed that the material placed before it disclosed specific allegations and that the procedural safeguards required under law had been complied with.
In the case of Abdul Najam Saqib @ Saqib, the petitioner had challenged the detention order dated October 11, 2024, issued by the District Magistrate, Srinagar. The petitioner argued that the grounds of detention were vague, stale and a replica of earlier detention grounds. However, the Court noted that the grounds referred not only to past FIRs registered in 2017 at Police Station Nowhatta but also to recent allegations, including that the detenue was allegedly in contact with Pakistan-based TRF handler Ahmad Khalid through encrypted messenger application for recruiting young boys to undertake terrorist activities. The Court held that the allegations were specific and rejected the challenge.
In the second case, Tanveer Ahmad Najar challenged the detention order dated April 29, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Baramulla. His counsel contended that no compelling circumstances existed for preventive detention as a regular criminal case was already pending against him. Rejecting the argument, the Court observed that the detention grounds alleged that after being granted bail in an Arms Act and UA(P) Act case, the detenue re-engaged in anti-national activities and used encrypted applications and Virtual Proxy Networks to communicate with OGWs and Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists operating from Pakistan. The Court held that such specific allegations disclosed compelling reasons for preventive detention.
In the third case, Akash Ahmad Lone challenged the detention order dated April 30, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama. The detenue claimed that the material relied upon by the detaining authority had not been supplied to him and that the allegations were vague. The Court, however, found from the detention record that he had received the warrant, notice of detention, grounds of detention, dossier, complaints and beat report. The Court further noted that the grounds specifically alleged that he had worked as an OGW of militant Yasir Parray and provided logistic support, including food, shelter and information about movement of police and security forces.
The High Court held that where the detention record shows specific allegations regarding alleged terror links, contact with handlers, encrypted communication and logistical support to militants, such grounds cannot be brushed aside as vague or non-existent. The Court also rejected the plea that the detention orders suffered from non-application of mind.
Finding no ground to interfere with the detention orders, Justice Dhar dismissed all three petitions and directed that the detention records be returned to the counsel for the respondents.
(JNF) |
