SRINAGAR, JAN 08: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed on behalf of a 26-year-old youth, one of the accused in a grenade blast at Hari Singh High Street here in 2022, against detention under the Public Safety Act.
Two civilians were killed and 37 people including some security personnel injured in the blast on 6 March 2022.
“It cannot be said that the impugned Order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, suffers from any non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority or that the activities, the petitioner has been allegedly indulging in, are not prejudicial to the security to the State,” a bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar said.
The accused person—Mohammad Bariq Magray (26), a resident of Khanyar Srinagar, had filed the petition through his friend against the PSA detention order (DMS/PSA/95/22) dated 30 August 2022.
Magray had claimed that he is a peace-loving and law-abiding citizen of India and has never indulged in any activity which could be termed as “prejudicial to the security of the State”. He submitted that on 6 March 2022 some unknown persons hurled a hand grenade at Hari Singh High Street Srinagar, which claimed the lives of two civilians and left thirty-seven other persons injured. Subsequently police had filed a case (FIR No. 18/2022) under Sections 307, 302 IPC, 7/27 Indian Arms Act and 16, 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the Police Station Shaheed Gunj Srinagar.
On the basis of suspicion, Magray said that he was picked up and arrested in the FIR. He said that the competent Court of TADA/POTA at Srinagar granted him bail on 26th September last year.
On the other hand, the authorities stated that the order of detention was “necessitated due to constant involvement of the petitioner (Magrey) in the subversive activities calculated to undermine the security of the State.”
The authorities said all safeguards laid down in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, were adhered to while taking Magrey under preventive detention. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the court said that it is of “considered opinion” that the detention of Magrey ordered by the Detaining Authority in terms impugned Order was “completely in consonance with law.” “The activities the petitioner (Magrey) has been indulging in, have the definite potential of undermining the Security of the State,” the court said and subsequently dismissed the petition as “meritless”.
