Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Hon’ble Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey of Jammu & Kashmir High Court passed an Order in the matter of Masood Ahmad Bhat v. State of J&K and Others, allowing habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Detenue, on account of authority’s failure to supply him a copy of the detention order.
Petitioner had claimed that he had not been provided with the material forming basis of the detention order and that there were no compelling grounds to keep him in custody. He placed reliance on Ibrahim Ahmad Batti v. State of Gujarat[1]. He added that the detaining authority had passed the detention order “on mere Ipsa Dixit” and thus the order was bad in law. Reliance was placed upon T.V Sravanan v. State through Secretary and Another[2].
The court in its order placed reliance on the judgement of Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India[3], wherein the apex court held that “documents, statements and other materials referred to or relied upon in the grounds of detention by the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction get incorporated and become part of the grounds of detention by reference and the right of the detenu to be supplied copies of such documents, statements and other materials flows directly as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention, because unless the former right is available the latter cannot be meaningfully exercised.”
Accepting the petitioner argument court said that “Examining the present case on the touchstone of the above-settled position of law and perusal of record, the detenu was not supplied the materials relied upon by the detaining authority. The detenu was provided material in the shape of grounds of detention with no other material/documents, as referred to in the order of detention. On these counts alone, because of the above-settled position of law, the detention of the detenu is vitiated, the detenu having been prevented from making an effective and purposeful representation against the order of detention.”
Court directs the authority to release petitioner from preventive custody forthwith. Petition disposed of.
[1] (1982) 3 SCC 440
[2] (2006) 2 SCC 664
[3] (1980) 4 SCC 531
86540
103860
630
114
59824