{"id":311354,"date":"2024-01-12T16:00:19","date_gmt":"2024-01-12T10:30:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=311354"},"modified":"2024-02-21T14:29:39","modified_gmt":"2024-02-21T08:59:39","slug":"preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court:<\/span> While considering the instant petition wherein the petitioner challenged the order detaining him under Section 8(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to security, sovereignty and integrity of the State, the bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J*.<\/span>, quashed the impugned order of detention for being unsustainable in law. The Court pointed out that there was nothing on record, more particularly in the order of detention, that after the petitioner was released, he indulged in new activities till the passing of impugned order of detention. “There is not even a whisper about the prejudicial activities<\/span>”. Therefore, the Court did not see any reason to press into service an FIR registered in the year 2004, more particularly when the petitioner has already faced trial in the aforesaid FIR and has been acquitted by the competent Court of jurisdiction.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Court however noted that, “Interestingly, the Detaining Authority has not shown any awareness about the acquittal of the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In an instant case, the order of detention was passed against the petitioner on 25-06-2022 by District Magistrate, Anantnag (‘The Detaining Authority’) under Section 8(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.<\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that the entire detention order was based on the FIR registered against him in the year 2004 under Sections 307, 302 Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (‘the RPC’) and Sections 7<\/a> and 25<\/a> Arms Act, 1959<\/a>, the petitioner after facing trial was acquitted long back.<\/p>\n

The respondent contested the writ petition and contented that all safeguards mentioned under Article 22<\/doclink> of the Constitution<\/doclink> and Section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 was duly followed by the Detaining Authority.<\/p>\n

It was further submitted by the respondent that the petitioner had close contact with the proscribed terrorist organisation Hizbul Mujahideen, and he was also providing logistic support to them in terms of food, shelter and transportation.<\/p>\n

The respondent further added that the petitioner was released and given an opportunity to reform and become a law-abiding citizen, but he failed to avail such opportunity and continued with such activities.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/p>\n

The Court quashed the impugned order of the detention as it was not sustainable in law and was primarily based on the allegations contained in the FIR filed against the petitioner in 2004.<\/p>\n

The Court pointed out that earlier on the basis of same allegations as contained in 2004 FIR, a detention order was issued against the petitioner on 19-10-2021 apprehending that the petitioner could disturb Holy Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra. However, this order of detention was also quashed by the Court, since then petitioner was not engaged in any prejudicial activities.<\/p>\n

The Court further opined that no person can be detained under preventive detention based on totally vague and unsubstantiated allegations. The Court relied on Suresh Mahato v. The District Magistrate, (1975) 3 SCC 554<\/a><\/span> wherein it was held that, “Mere apprehension of the Detaining Authority that too based on no material cannot be a ground for detaining a person under preventive custody.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Hence, the writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were further directed to release the petitioner from preventive custody.<\/p>\n

[Bashir Ahmad Koka v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kasmir, 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 1120<\/a>, decided on 26-12-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgement by Justice Sanjeev Kumar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the petitioner :<\/span> Asif Ali Dar, Advocate<\/p>\n

For the respondents :<\/span> Alla-ud-din Ganai, Additional Advocate General<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The petitioner was detained in June 2022 based on a FIR registered against him in 2004. However, the petitioner had already been acquitted from the charges levied against him in 2004.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":293506,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[20031,47697,32944,35290,32945,3117,30433,32664],"class_list":["post-311354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arms-act","tag-article-22","tag-detaining-authority","tag-jammu-and-kashmir-public-safety-act","tag-preventive-custody","tag-Preventive_Detention","tag-ranbir-penal-code","tag-writ"],"yoast_head":"\nJ&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered in 2004<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the detenue had already been acquitted from the charges levied against in 2004.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the detenue had already been acquitted from the charges levied against in 2004.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-01-12T10:30:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-02-21T08:59:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered in 2004\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-01-12T10:30:19+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-02-21T08:59:39+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the detenue had already been acquitted from the charges levied against in 2004.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"jammu and kashmir and ladakh high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered in 2004","description":"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the detenue had already been acquitted from the charges levied against in 2004.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004","og_description":"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the detenue had already been acquitted from the charges levied against in 2004.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-01-12T10:30:19+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-02-21T08:59:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/","name":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered in 2004","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp","datePublished":"2024-01-12T10:30:19+00:00","dateModified":"2024-02-21T08:59:39+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"J&K and Ladakh HC noted that the detenue had already been acquitted from the charges levied against in 2004.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"jammu and kashmir and ladakh high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/12\/preventive-detention-fir-quashment-order-detenue-jk-ladakh-hc-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J&K and Ladakh HC quashes the detention order issued in 2022 based on an FIR registered against a detenue in 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":273151,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/06\/jk-and-ladakh-hc-number-of-acts-not-to-be-determined-for-detention-of-an-individual-but-impact-of-the-acts-preventive-detention\/","url_meta":{"origin":311354,"position":0},"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC| Number of acts not to be determined for detention of an individual, but impact of the act(s) [Preventive Detention]","author":"Editor","date":"September 6, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J. dismissed a petition which was filed assailing the detention order in terms of Section (3) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (\u2018NDPS Act\u2019) issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir (\u2018Detaining\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247740,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/30\/jamat-i-islami\/","url_meta":{"origin":311354,"position":1},"title":"J&K HC | [Jamat-i-Islami] HC quashes preventive detention order holding opportunity to effective representation an essential pre-requisite","author":"Editor","date":"April 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Sanjeev Kumar, J., heard the instant petition presented by the wife of the Petitioner to assail his detention ordered by District Magistrate, Pulwama under Preventive Detention law. The Bench opined, \u201cTwo FIRs, pertain to the offences under NDPS Act and, therefore, if the petitioner was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":298347,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/02\/fundamentalist-muslim-cannot-equated-extremist-preventive-detention-jammu-and-kashmir-ladakh-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":311354,"position":2},"title":"A fundamentalist Muslim cannot be equated with an extremist; J&K and Ladakh HC observes","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 2, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court also observed that fundamentalism pertaining to a Muslim is merely someone who believes in the fundamentals of Islam and the same cannot have a negative bearing.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"jammu and kashmir and ladakh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324947,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/24\/district-magistrate-detention-order-impugned-non-application-of-mind-petition-allowed\/","url_meta":{"origin":311354,"position":3},"title":"\u201cOnce a statute provides for detention under specific contingency, a person can\u2019t be detained under another contingency\u201d: J&K and Ladakh HC","author":"Editor","date":"June 24, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court pointed out that the petitioner could have been detained only under Section 8 (1)(a-1) of the PSA and not under Section 8(1)(a) of the PSA, as both the clauses (a) and (a-1) operate in different fields","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Jammu-and-Kashmir-and-Ladakh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214462,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/08\/j-detenu-to-be-released\/","url_meta":{"origin":311354,"position":4},"title":"J&K HC | Failure to communicate ground of detention to detenu is denial of Constitutional right under Art. 22(5); detenu to be released","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir High Court: This Habeas Corpus petition was filed before the Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., for quashing of a detention order passed by District Magistrate by which detenu was detained. Mir Shafaqat Hussain, learned counsel on behalf of petitioner submitted that detenu can make a representation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":217211,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/23\/jk-hc-preventive-detention-of-a-person-who-is-already-in-custody-of-state-in-connection-with-commission-of-offence-under-substantive-law-must-not-be-ordered\/","url_meta":{"origin":311354,"position":5},"title":"J&K HC | Preventive detention of a person who is already in custody of State in connection with commission of offence under substantive law must not be ordered","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Rashid Ali Dar, J. allowed a habeas corpus petition and quashed detention order of a person who had been under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. (hereinafter \u201cthe Act\u201d). Petitioner herein (detenue) was supplying 50\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/311354","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=311354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/311354\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/293506"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=311354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=311354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=311354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}