Where personal freedom comes into conflict with the security of the state, it should give way to the large interest of the nation, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has organized the petition challenging the custody of 27 -year -old youth from Doda under the Public Safety Act.
A single judge bench of Justice Ma Chaudhary was filed by his brother Mohammad Irfan by Rehmatullah of Desa Bhata in Doda district.
In his petition, Dettenu challenged on November 9, 2024, the Doda District Magistrate on the basis that the detention order said that it was primarily based on five FIRs – most of which allegedly discharged. On the remaining FIR, he claims that they are “vague”, a physical fact that is allegedly “hidden” from the authority to be detained.
It is then alleged that a representation filed by the petitioner on November 22, 2024 was neither a rapidly considered nor the result was given to Detenu, and as a result, he could not make “effective and meaningful representation” to the government.
The government’s lawyer, asan Dadichi, however, denied the petitioner’s arguments, saying that his representation was duly considered and found “without qualification”. He also argued that the detained authority had only observed the FIR of the past against Detenu in the background, but mainly dependent on four new people between 2021 and 2024.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Ma Chaudhary noticed that detention was clearly showed that Detenu was an OGW (overground worker) and a “extremist sympathy”, which was detained under the Public Safety Act in 2016.
The new FIR also showed continuous participation in criminal and anti -national activities without any honor of the original law, thus creating a serious threat to J&K, especially, UT’s security scenario of District Doda, Justice Chaudhary saw.
The story continues below this advertisement
The court said, “Keeping in mind the activities of DTENU, the detention order has been issued after the proper application of the mind, the detention authority has been issued on arrival at the subjective satisfaction, with which the mistake cannot be made,” the court said.
“The power of preventive preventive is a precautionary power used in appropriate anticipation. It may or may not be related to the crime. Preventive custody can be ordered before or during prosecution and prosecution is not once for the order of preventive custody of the prosecution and not even for the prosecution,” he said.
In this case, the Authority of custody – District Magistrate – applied his mind to all the materials, the previous conduct of Detaneu and “subjective satisfaction that Detaneu’s activities were prejudiced for the interest of the state and issued an order of detention”, the court.
He said, “The freedom of a person should be closed within the appropriate limit for the good of society on a large scale,” he said. “In a democracy ruled by the rule of law, for the security of the state, to detain a person without testing and/or for the maintenance of public system, should be considered strictly. However, where personal freedom comes into struggle with the interest of security of state or public system, then the freedom of the person should be given a way for the big interest of the nation.”
,
