Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 3: High Court today dismissed the petition seeking quashment of Public Safety Act (PSA) imposed on self-styled faith healer Gulzar Ahmed Bhat alias Gulzar Peer.
The self-styled faith healer was placed under prevention detention on the orders of District Magistrate Budgam to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the security of the State.
He was earlier booked under FIR No.40/2013 at Police Station Khansahib on the basis of written complaint filed by four girls that they were subjected to sexual exploitation by Gulzar Peer. However, he was acquitted of the charge by a judgment dated February 12, 2015.
Senior Advocate P N Raina with Advocate J A Hamal appearing for Gulzar Ahmad Bhat submitted before the High Court that while slapping PSA on the petitioner the respondents have not adhered to constitutional statutory safeguards available to detenue under the Constitution of India and J&K Public Safety Act.
However, Senior Additional Advocate General Wasim Sadiq Nargal appearing for the State submitted that acquittal of the detenue under FIR No.40/2013 under Section 376 RPC was on the basis of technical grounds like delay in lodging FIR, some loopholes and flaws in investigation.
“The detenue is also involved in FIR No.15/2015 under Section 307, 348, 336, 332 and 427 RPC and in order to execute an order passed by Executive Magistrate under Section 107 CrPC a police party approached detenue but he along with his supporters pelted stones due to which some police personnel were injured”, he further submitted.
After hearing both the sides, Justice Tashi Rabstan observed, “personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It was for this reason that the founding fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanising the harsh authority over individual liberty”.
“In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State and/or maintenance of public order must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation”, High Court said.
“If one looks at the acts, the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, is designed for, is to prevent, they are all these acts that are prejudicial to security of the State or maintenance of public order. The acts, indulged in by persons, who act in concert with other persons and quite often such activity has national level ramifications”, Justice Tashi said, adding “these acts are preceded by a good amount of planning and organization by the set of people fascinated in tumultuousness. They are not like ordinary law and order crimes. If, however, in any given case a single act is found to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be quashed, but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot constitute the basis for detention. On the contrary, it does”.
“In other words, it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention”, the High Court said while dismissing the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel