SRINAGAR, Mar 30: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has closed contempt proceedings against District Magistrate Baramulla Minga Sherpa and the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Baramulla Amod Ashok after both of them made their personal appearance before the court as directed.
The Court said that whenever the preventive detention of a detenue gets quashed it hoped the Government of J&K acts with “reasonable dispatch to ensure that the detenue person is released from the custody without unwarranted loss of time”.
The court made these observations in a contempt petition against DM Baramulla and SSP Baramulla who despite orders from the High Court had not ensured the release of a detenue from detention and remained in illegal detention for 79 days.The High Court made known to the two officers, who were present in the court its “serious concern about the loss of 79 days of (detenue’s) life” who remained “under preventive custody without any legal basis”.
A single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed in his order on March 26 that the detenue earned his release “upon intervention of this court when the petitioner came to file the present contempt petition”, in which he apprised the court that despite quashment of his preventive detention in terms of judgment dated 30.12.2023 the petitioner has not earned his release from the custody, that is with effect from the date of pronouncement of the judgment reading his detention illegal.”
“This court hopes that such like scenario does not repeat again and whenever the preventive detention of a detenue gets quashed, the Government of UT of Jammu and Kashmir acts with reasonable dispatch to ensure that the detenue person is released from the custody without unwarranted loss of time”, Justice Bharti observed while disposing off a contempt petition by Muneeb Rasool Shenwari filed through his lawyer.
The court let the petitioner restored to his personal liberty in terms of the order on March 18, and subsequently closed the contempt petition against the DM and SSP concerned.
The Court, however, made it clear that “without prejudice to the right of the petitioner”, he is free to “avail appropriate legal remedy against the defaulting/erring official or authority for illegal detention suffered by him post quashment” of his detention order
