For the best experience, open
https://m.greaterkashmir.com
on your mobile browser.

HC quashes PSA detention of 3 persons

01:01 AM Dec 17, 2023 IST | GK CORESPONDENT
hc quashes psa detention of 3 persons
Advertisement

Srinagar, Dec 16: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has ordered immediate release of three persons while quashing their detention under Public Safety Act (PSA).

Advertisement
   

While a bench of Justice M A Chowdhary quashed the detention order against Aqib Zahoor Ganie, of Kulbugh, Budgam, the detention orders of Khursheed Ahmad Sanaie of Fallchill Khansahib, Budgam and Ashiq Hussain Bhat of Srinagar were quashed by Justice Sanjay Dhar.

Advertisement

Ganaie was detained in terms of an order dated “15.04.2022 passed by District Magistrate Budgam while Sanai was booked by virtue of an order issued by the District Magistrate on 20.09.2022. Bhat was taken into custody on the basis of the detention order passed by District Magistrate Srinagar on 07.04.2022.’’

Advertisement

Disposing of their habeas corpus petitions, the court directed the authorities release the detainees from preventive custody forthwith provided they were not required in other cases.

Advertisement

“......It is, thus, for detaining authority to formulate grounds of detention and satisfy itself that grounds of detention so formulated warrant passing of order of preventive detention. Perusal of grounds of detention, in the present case, would show that it is a verbatim copy with just some cosmetic changes here and there, of dossier of Senior Superintendent of Police, submitted by him to the concerned Magistrate,” the court said in the order quashing Ganie’s detention.

Advertisement

Furthermore it said: “It is clear that there has to be a live and proximate link between the past conduct of the detenu and the activities alleged to be prejudicial to the maintenance of security of the State. In the instant case, the said link is completely missing as the time between the order of detention and the incident(s) referred to in the grounds of detention is far too large to presume such a link. The impugned order of detention, therefore, cannot be sustained on this ground also”.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
×