Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 26: High Court quashed 9 detention orders issued under Public Safety Act (PSA) and directed their release from preventive custody and upheld the two.
The detenues Hilal Ahmad Peer of Kachwa Muqam, Riyaz Ahmad Mir of Khellan Litter, Shahid Majeed Dar of Bunpora Batamaloo, Showkat Ahmed Mir of Ussaun Khoie, Pattan, Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat of Bhatpora Larnoo, Javid Ahmad Lone of Panzgam Kralpora, Mohammad Sulaiman Khan of Shamthan Dardpora, Sameer Ahmad Malla of Maldera and Anjum Bashir Mir of Gulab Bagh were detained by the Districts Magistrates of Baramulla, Pulwama, Srinagar, Anantnag, Kupwara, Bandipora and Shopian in order to prevent them from any activity prejudicial to the security of the state.
Court while quashing the detention orders, allowed the petitions of the detenues with the direction to the jail authorities to set them free from the preventive custody provided they are not required in connection with any other case.
The PSAs of detenue Zahoor Ahmad Shah of Panjtarah Karnah District Kupwara and Yawar Ahmad Shergojri son of Mohammad Yousuf Shergojri resident of Naina Batapora District Pulwama were upheld by the court.
Having glance at the grounds of detention of detenue-Shah court said is involved in criminal and anti-national activities and did not desist himself from indulging in such activities. His inclination towards secessionist elements gave him a place in the banned organization (HM), of which he was an active member.
The detenu court added, did not shun the path of his nefarious and anti-national activities. The detaining authority after keeping in view the activities of the detenu highly prejudicial and detrimental to the maintenance of the security of the State, detained him under preventive custody, in terms of the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present petition.
“Those who are responsible for national security or for maintenance of public order must be the sole arbitrators of what the national security, public order or security of the State requires. 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. Justification for such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability and not criminal conviction, which can only be warranted by legal evidence”, Court recorded.
In detenu- Shergojri’s case, court said the involvement of a person in the activities mentioned in an FIR can become a basis for subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which, as already noted, cannot be reviewed judicially and it is not open to this Court to determine as to whether the reasons mentioned in the grounds of detention are sound enough to pass an order of detention. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Follow our WhatsApp channel