Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Tuesday, July 2, 2024

Non-Mention Of Bail Granted To Accused In FIR-Based Detention Order Renders Detention Illegal: J&K HC

Posted in: Criminal Law
Mon, Jun 24, 24, 16:21, 1 Week ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 14452
Manzoor Ahmad Bhat vs J&K that once an FIR is the core ground for passing a detention order, the non-mentioning of bail granted in relation to that FIR renders the detention order illegal.

It is definitely most refreshing, most reassuring and most rejuvenating to see that in the fitness of things while rising to the occasion in very rightly quashing a preventive detention order, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Manzoor Ahmad Bhat Vs UT of J&K in HCP No.18/2023 and cited in 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 165 that was reserved on 16.05.2024 and then finally pronounced on 30.05.2024 has minced just no words to declare most unambiguously that once an FIR is the core ground for passing a detention order, the non-mentioning of bail granted in relation to that FIR renders the detention order illegal. We need to note here that a Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta based this key observation on a well settled proposition of law which postulates that the detaining authority is required to disclose all the relevant material in the detention order as it would reflect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing the detention order.

It must be also noted here that the Bench further also clearly underscored most unequivocally stating that:
No doubt, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not to be scrutinized by this court as a court of appeal but at the same time the court is not completely debarred from prima facie looking into the satisfaction of the detaining authority in the proceedings like the present one.” No denying it.

It is worth paying attention that the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court made these observations in a case that involved Manzoor Ahmad Bhat who is a resident of Kashmir and who was detained by authorities under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act) in July 2023. The detention order cited an FIR registered against Bhat but it did not mention that he had been granted bail in that case just weeks prior to the detention order. While citing the popular Supreme Court judgment in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Vs District Magistrate Jabalpur.

The High Court reiterated the fundamental right of a detenu to have their representation considered promptly. The High Court very rightly found the extended delay by the authorities in Bhat’s case to be a violation of this right. In light of these observations, we thus see that the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court very rightly found it to be a no-brainer to rule most explicitly in favour of Bhat thus quashing the detention order and so also ordering his immediate release.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The petitioner-Manzoor Ahmad Bhat through his father has challenged the detention order No.DIVCOM-K/102/2023 dated 06.07.2023 issued by respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir on the grounds; i) that the detention order has been passed by the authority without application of mind as the grounds mentioned in the detention order are vague and do not mention of the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court in FIR No.54/2023 registered under Sections 8/20-29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988; ii) that there was no cogent material before the authority to pass the impugned order; and iii) that the representation has been filed before the authorities but he has not been heard in the matter in person or through his counsel or friend.”

As we see, the Bench mentions in para 2 that:
The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is submitted that the respondent has passed the impugned order after complying with all the formalities as required by law; that the petitioner was influencing immature minds of young generation and making them habitual and addict; that the Advisory Board has confirmed the detention of the petitioner and subsequently the Government has also confirmed the detention of the petitioner. The grounds mentioned are not vague but precise ones. The counter affidavit refers to apprehending of the petitioner in FIR No.54/2023 under NDPS Act.”

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 3 that:
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Photo copy of the detention record is also produced by learned counsel for the respondents.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that:
The impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner in terms of Section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘PITNDPS’). The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds of detention speak of non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority as the same has been passed only on the basis of one FIR, in which, the petitioner has been bailed out. The petitioner was granted bail by the Court vide order dated 22.05.2023. However, there is no mention of the same in the detention order.”

Most rationally, the Bench quips and points out in para 6 that:
The detention order has been passed vide order dated 06.07.2023 and the bail has been granted by the Court on 22.05.2023 in FIR No.54/2023. Indeed the aforesaid FIR is mentioned in the detention order itself. However, the detention order does not speak of the granting of bail to the petitioner which was granted just sometime before passing of the detention order. It is not that the detention order is not passed on the basis of aforesaid FIR. The mention of the same in the detention order but not stating that the petitioner has been bailed out in the FIR cannot be ignored by this Court while analyzing the detention order. What prevented respondent No.2 from stating the afore stated fact that the bail has been granted to the petitioner by the Court is not made known to the court. The fact of bail having been granted was bound to be reflected in the detention order.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 7 that:
The argument of learned counsel for respondents that the non-mentioning of bail in the detention order is not fatal cannot be accepted. The Registration of FIR against the petitioner is the core ground for passing the detention order, therefore, the non-mentioning of the same in the detention order renders the detention order illegal.”

Most significantly and most fundamentally, the Bench underscores in para 8 mandating that:
It is trite proposition of law that the detaining authority is required to disclose all the relevant material in the detention order as it would reflect the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority while passing the detention order. No doubt, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not to be scrutinized by this court as a court of appeal but at the same time the court is not completely debarred from prima facie looking into the satisfaction of the detaining authority in the proceedings like the present one. The detention order is required to be quashed on the aforesaid ground of non-mention of bail order.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 11 that:
Another aspect of the matter is that though the representation has been considered by the authorities but the authorities have taken more than two months to dispose of the representation of the petitioner which by no means can said to be consideration and disposal of the representation within a reasonable time. Moreso, there is no explanation from the authorities as to why so much delay has happened in considering the representation. The representation has to be considered and decided by the authorities with all promptitude and in case there is a delay in disposal of the representation, the reasons must come forthwith from the concerned authorities.”

While citing here a very recent, relevant and remarkable case law, the Bench then hastens to add in para 12 stating succinctly that:
In “Sarabjeet Singh Mokha Vs. District Magistrate Jabalpur and others” reported in (2021) 20 SCC 98 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the representation, if made by the detenue, must be considered and decided without any delay as the delay in the disposal of representation deprives the detenue of his right to avail the remedy available to him. The judgment in Sarabjeet Singh Mokha’s case (supra) applies on all fours in the case in hand.”

Quite significantly, the Bench while taking here a very balanced, bold and brilliant stand minces just no words to clearly hold in para 13 that:
The preventive detention being not a criminal proceedings and is only with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in illegal activities, the safeguards provided in the Act have to be scrupulously followed by the authorities and any violation of the same will be illegality committed by the concerned authorities.”

Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then concludes by holding and directing in para 14 that:
In view of the discussion made above, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order No. DIVCOM-K/102/2023 dated 06.07.2023 passed by respondent No.2 stands quashed. The petitioner namely Manzoor Ahmad Bhat shall stand released from custody if not required in any other case.”

In a nutshell, we thus see that the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar has been most forthright in holding precisely that non-mention of bail granted to the accused in FIR-based detention order renders detention illegal. We thus see that the petitioner is rightly ordered by the High Court to be released from custody as mentioned hereinabove. It thus certainly merits no reiteration of any kind that all the courts in India must in similar such cases definitely rule accordingly as has been ruled in this leading case! No denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top