Back
N. KOTISHWAR SINGH, MA CHOWDHARY
Jahangir Ahmed Dar – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K through Principal Secretary to Government – Respondent
JUDGMENT
MA Chowdhary, J.—This intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant Jahangir Ahmed Dar against the judgment/order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in a Writ Petition WP(Crl) No. 732/2022 titled “Jahangir Ahmed Dar vs UT of J&K & Ors,” whereby his plea to quash Order No. DIVCOM-K/279/22 dated 19.10.2022 (for short “detention order”) passed in terms of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 by the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir (hereinafter called “the Commissioner”).
2. The appellant/petitioner vide detention order dated 19.10.2022, had been directed to be detained in preventive custody, in terms of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 by the Commissioner. The appellant/petitioner while challenging the order passed by the Commissioner had contented in his petition that he had been implicated falsely in case FIR No. 04/2021 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 8/20 NDPS Act and in that case he had been admitted to bail by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, besides p
Preventive detention – Non-reflection of granting of bail in favour of detenu is not fatal to detention order.
The right to personal liberty must be safeguarded, and any deprivation of liberty must be in accordance with the law, with a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose o....
The judgment established that a detention order can be challenged at the pre-arrest/pre-execution stage on grounds beyond those enumerated in Alka Subhash Gadia's case, but the delay in executing the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compelling reasons to justify preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act, 1988, and the importance of complying with procedural....
The detention order was quashed due to vagueness in grounds and violation of constitutional rights under Article 22(5), alongside significant delays in execution.
Preventive detention – Making of an effective representation by a detenu is a very vital constitutional safeguard against preventive detention.
Preventive detention requires a live link between alleged activities and the detention order; unreasonable delays can invalidate such orders.
Preventive detention requires strict compliance with statutory safeguards and justifications for delay, ensuring protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
