The Jammu and Kashmir High Court in the case Imran Nabi Wani Vs UT of J&K observed and has upheld the preventive detention of a man who in the case is the main accused in the DySP lynching case that occurred in Srinagar’s in the Nowhatta area in the year 2017.
The said incident took place dates back to the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd June 2017 when a Deputy Superintendent of Police, DySP of the security wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Police was lynched to death by a mob outside Jamia Masjid in the Srinagar’s Nowhatta area. Therefore, the officer was being deployed at the mosque to supervise security personnel during a large gathering on the eve of Shab-i-Qadr. Therefore, the mob attacked the officer and snatched his service pistol, brutally thrashed him until the officer succumbed to the injuries.
However, the court observed that Wani was thereafter detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act 1978 in order to prevent him from engaging in any further illegal activities.
The petitioner in the plea contended that he was granted bail in the lynching case, which the detaining authority failed to consider the same.
Further, he in the case also challenged the order on grounds of vagueness in allegations and the lack of fresh activity attributed to him since 2017, wherein it has been claimed by the petitioner that the detaining authority did not prepare the grounds of detention independently and has relied solely on the police dossier. The bench of Justice M A Chowdhary stated while deciding of his Habeas Corpus petition wherein it is stated that the legal position with regards to preventive detention of a person already in custody for a substantive offence is well settled and the Preventive detention of such individuals is generally not ordered, but it can be done if there are compelling reasons in order to believe that the person might be released on bail or due to acquittal or discharge in the substantive offence.
The court in the case observed and has also emphasized that preventive detention is not punitive but only preventive in nature, wherein it aimed at protecting society and it has also been observed by the court that the grounds of detention and the detaining authority’s satisfaction were based on material which indicated the involvement of Wani’s in the DySP lynching case. The petitioner in the plea claimed of not receiving relevant material for making an effective representation was dismissed by the said court, as the detenue had been provided with copies of the detention warrants, the grounds of detention, dossier, and other related documents.
The bench of Justice Chowdhary observed and has stated that the said court do not even go into the questions as to whether the facts mentioned in the grounds of detention are correct or false.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Mr. Wajid Haseeb appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr.AAG with Mr. Taha Khalil, assisting counsel represented the respondent.
