TMI Blog1970 (7) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus (W. P. No. 400 of 1969) but that application was with drawn by him. On December 5, 1968 the petitioner was transferred from interrogation center to the Central Jail, Jammu. On December 10, 1968 he was told that the grounds of detention could not be disclosed to him and this was long after the expiry of ten days from his arrest. The petitioner was tortured at the interrogation center, Jammu, and his signatures were forcibly obtained on a piece of blank paper. The petitioner claimed to be a permanent resident of village Azamabad, police station Thana Darhal, Tahsil and District Rajouri. His arrest was alleged to be mainly due to personal grudges of Fazal Hasan and Nazir Hasan. 2. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner on September 11, 1968. The order of detention is as under: Whereas I, C. B. Budgujar, I. A. S. District Magistrate, Rajouri, am satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Talib Hussain @ Abdul Rehman s/o Feroz Din r/o Azamabad p/s Darhal now Gujran Wala, West Pakistan from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State it is necessary so to do. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964, I, C. B. Budgujar, I. A. S. District Magistrate, Rajouri hereby direct that the said Talib Hussain @ Abdul Rehman s/o Feroz Din be detained in Additional Police Lock up p/s Saddar, Jammu, subject to such conditions as to maintena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State and it having been considered against public interest to disclose to him the grounds of his detention, it is clear that by virtue of the provisions of Section 13-A (2)(b) (ii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, Section 8(1) of that Act, and by virtue of Section 13-A(2)(c), Section 10 of that Act, were both inapplicable to this case. These provisions merely serve to demonstrate that the question of security of the State is of paramount importance and is placed above the right to personal liberty of an individual whose activities are a danger to such security. Activities prejudicial to the security of the State always pose a threat to the public peace and safety and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
