Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
P. B. Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey, JJ.
Deepak Dhanuk – Petitioner
versus
Union of India through
the Joint Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.650 of 2024
Decided on 14.8.2024
(A) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 – Section 3(1) – Preventive detention – In cases of preventive detention, where detenu is held in arrest not for a crime committed but for a potential crime he may commit, Court must always give every benefit of doubt in favour of detenu and even slightest of error in procedural compliances must result in favour of detenu – Petitioner was involved in two NCB cases – There is no direct material evidence to the extent that petitioner is involved in NCB cases – Petitioner is disputing proposal and grounds for detention read with documents – Documents have not been supplied to him even though respondents have stated that documents have been supplied – There are no material evidence to show that it has been served – There is delay of about 46 days in serving proposed detention order along with the grounds – Official respondents were required to serve within 5 days – There are no iota of material information to respondents to the extent that after obtaining bail orders in the cases respondents are of the view that petitioner is likely to commit identical offences – When a person is to be detained under provisions of PITNDPS, principle of fairness is warranted – Petitioner should have knowledge of proceedings in known language – On this point, petitioner has made out a case.(Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 22)
(B) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 – Section 9(c) – Constitution of India – Article 22(5) – Preventive detention – Opinion of Advisory Board is not reasoned one – Central Government while passing detention order for a period of one year, is also a not speaking order and there is not even reference of consideration to petitioner’s wife’s representation – Rejection of petitioner’s representation is in violation of principles of natural justice – Order of detention passed by Deputy Secretary, Government of India, quashed and set aside.(Paras 30, 31 and 37)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
P. B. Bajanthri, J.—Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘PITNDPS’) (Annexure-1) and order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, under Section 9(f) of the PITNDPS (Annexure-3), confirming the detention order for a period of one year.
Factual Matrix:
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner- Deepak Dhanuk was alleged to have involved in Crime No.29/2021, NCB Patna; NDPS Special Case No.26/2021 in connection with seizure of 315 grams of Alprazolam, 270 grams of Morphine and 500 grams of Patthar on 28.11.2021. Similarly in Crime No.04/2022, NCB Patna; NDPS Special Case No.71/2022, seizure of 380 grams of heroin on 26.01.2022. His alleged involvement was based on statement of the accused Madan Singh Sondhiya and Vikas Kumar. Further, a case was registered bearing Shahpur P.S. Case No.448 of 2023 for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504 and read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner-Deepak Dhanuk had the benefit of regular bail in NDPS Special Case No.71/2022 arising out of NCB Case No.04/22 in Criminal Misc. No.37896 of 2023 decided on 04.07.2023 (Annexure-6), in NDPS Case No.57/2022, arising out of NCB Case No.29/2021 dated 26.05.2022, in Criminal Misc. No.40976 of 2023, he had the benefit of regular bail on 19.07.2023 (Annexure-5). Similarly, in respect of Shahpur P.S. Case No.448 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 504 and read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, he had the benefit of regular bail in Criminal Misc. No.5567 of 2024 decided on 09.02.2024.
3. In this backdrop, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, initiated action under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS and it was supported by the grounds on which the detention order dated 01.09.2023 has been issued against the petititoner-Deepak Dhanuk and the same was communicated to him vide Annexures-1 and 2 respectively. On 28.09.2023, in Shahpur P.S. Case No.448 of 2023, petitioner was taken into custody. On 09.02.2024, bail was granted. In the meanwhile, on 17.10.2023, detention order and grounds were served on him. On 03.11.2023, matter was referred to Advisory Board and it was communicated to the petitioner on 11.11.2023 and to Advisory Board on 09.11.2023. Thereafter, petitioner’s wife submitted representation through Registered post to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, on 30.11.2023. The same was rejected on 20.12.2023. Notice was issued for appearance of petitioner before Advisory Board on 20.12.2023 to appear on 21.12.2023 at 03:00 PM. It was deferred to next date i.e., 22.12.2023 and opinion was notified on 22.12.2023. Resultantly, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, confirmed the detention order on 01.01.2024 under Section 9(f) of PITNDPS. Hence, the present writ petition.
Arguments advanced by Petitioner:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner-Deepak Dhanuk was taken into custody in NCB Case No.29 of 2021 on 26.01.2022. On 18.10.2022, petitioner was remanded in NCB Case No.04 of 2022. He had the benefit of regular bail in NCB Case No.04 of 2022 on 04.07.2023 and, similarly, in NCB Case No.29 of 2021 on 19.07.2023. He was involved in Shahpur P.S. Case No.448 of 2023 and he was under custody till 09.02.2024. In the intervening period on 01.09.2023, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, gave a proposal along with the grounds for detention. Petitioner was served with proposed detention order along with the grounds of detention on 17.10.2023. Petitioner had passed 8th standard and he was not aware of English language. Therefore, the authorities should have furnished proposed detention order with the grounds of detention dated 01.09.2023 along with relied documents in Hindi translation and merely apprising orally is incorrect when lib
Preventive detention – When a person is to be detained under provisions of PITNDPS, principle of fairness is warranted – Petitioner should have knowledge of proceedings in known language.
(1) Preventive detention – Principle of Parity is squarely applicable in a case where another co-detenu with identical circumstances, has already been granted relief of quashing detention order again....
Detention orders under the PITNDPS Act can be upheld when communicated timely and justified despite delays in arrest, emphasizing the subjective satisfaction of authorities against habitual offenders....
Preventive detention requires clear grounds and sufficient material to justify the detention, ensuring the detainee's right to make an effective representation is upheld.
Non furnishing of documents is not fatal and also to project that likelihood of release on bail may not be a consideration.
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
