IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention – Tentativeness on part of detaining authority in drawing conclusion regarding nature of activities of petitioner vitiates subjective satisfaction drawn by it.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged Order No. PITNDPS 40 of 2025 dated 27.06.2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as “impugned order of detention”) issued by respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu whereby while exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as “PITNDPS”), the detaining authority has ordered preventive detention of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the grounds that the same has been passed without application of mind. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed with an objective, which is alien to the object contemplated by Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. It has been further contended that there is no proximate and live link between the alleged incidents forming basis of the grounds of detention with the order of detention as a result of which the same becomes unsustainable in law. It has also been contended that the grounds of detention have not been explained to the petitioner in a language which he understands. It has been contended that order of detention and grounds of detention are nothing but reproduction of allegations made by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jammu in the dossier.

3. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit of respondent No. 2-the detaining authority. In the counter affidavit, it has been contended that the petitioner, after getting bail in the cases in which he was booked, again involved himself in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs, which was posing threat to the public order as well as to the health and welfare of the people. Accordingly, the detaining authority, after examining the dossier submitted by SSP, Jammu has drawn subjective satisfaction about the imperative need to pass the detention order against the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order of detention was passed.

4. It has been submitted that while executing the warrant of detention, entire material along with grounds of detention etc. (total 121 leaves) was furnished to the petitioner and the contents thereof were explained to him in Hindi language. It has been contended that the petitioner was informed about his right to make representation before the Government as well as before the detaining authority against the detention order. In order to lend support to the aforesaid contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record.

6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has raised numerous grounds for assailing the impugned order of detention, yet during the course of arguments, he has laid much emphasis on the ground that there has been non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention inasmuch as the said order has been passed for an objective, which is alien to the purpose mentioned in Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act.

7. In the context of the above ground, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has, after narrating the factual aspects, forming basis of lodging of FIR Nos. 149/2021, 146/2022, 380/2023 and 05/2025 registered with different police stations i.e., Police Station, Nawabad, Police Station, Bishnah, Police Station, Domana and Police Station, Janipur and the two Daily Diary Reports (DDRs), proceeded to refer to the dossier of the SSP, Jammu, who according to the detaining authority, had recommended detention of the petitioner under PITNDPS Act to maintain public order, peace and tranquility as substantive law had failed to deter the petitioner from indulging in illicit trafficking of drugs. In the concluding para of the grounds of the detention, the detaining authority has drawn the satisfaction that with a vie