Rights panel question police for detaining man under PSA for 3 yrs

SRINAGAR:THE Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has raised questions over the manner police applied the Public Safety Act (PSA), a law which provides for preventive detention of a person without trial for six months to one year, in case of a man from Bandipora who stayed under detention for nearly three years.

Hearing an application on the detention of Assadullah Parray of Hajin in Bandipora district, SHRC chairman justice (retd) Bilal Nazki said the report filed by SSP Bandipora made an “interesting reading”.

According to the report, Parray’s detention under the PSA was quashed by the high court on December 16, 2017, but he was arrested again under various FIRS registered against him in 2016. He was released on bail by courts in these cases but was arrested again on January 23, 2018, in connection with another FIR of 2017. He got bail in this case on February 9 this year.

According to the report, the police claimed that after his release, Parray’s activities were monitored under close surveillance and it came to notice through reliable sources/intelligence agencies that he had not shunned the path of “anti-national/nefarious activities” and was again instigating the youth of Hajin area, against the government and following strike calls given by separatists by “resorting to stone-pelting”.

Justice Nazki said the police report revealed that the detenue was in continuous custody till February 9 and the detention order under PSA was passed on February 10.“It is stated by the SSP that during this one night his activities were monitored and he was found engaged in anti-national and nefarious activities. The commission fails to understand as to what the detenue did during one night when he was free,” he said in the order.

The SHRC chairperson said the commission failed to understand when was the dossier prepared and submitted by the SSP to the deputy commissioner who passed the order on February 10. “The commission is also not sure whether the action of the respondents (state) is in conformity with mandate of Article 21-22 of the Constitution,” he noted.