SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Shalinder Kaur, JJ.
Naushad Ali Through Perokar Sahajad Ali - Appellant
Versus
Uoi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(Criminal) No. 2778 of 2023, CRL.M.A. No. 26003 of 2023
Decided On : 20-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Priyanka Kapoor, Ms. Smriti Asmita, Advocates., for the Petitioner; Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CGSC with Mr. Kamal R. Digpaul and Mr. B.S. Meena, Under Secretary, PITNDPS Cell for UOI., Mr. Subhash Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel (NCB) with Mr. Shashwat Bansal, Advocate for respondent/NCB.

Preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act is justified when substantial evidence indicates ongoing illegal trafficking activities, and delays in execution may be excused where the detainee evades authorities.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Section 3(1) and Section 9(6) - Detention order issued to prevent illicit trafficking of narcotics following significant recoveries from petitioner’s store and confirmed by the Central Government - Detention justified to prevent recurrence of threats to public safety. (Paras 1, 7, 70)

(B) Preventive Detention - Purpose - Must prevent individual from prejudicial activities to state security or public order - Courts must balance national security with individual rights. (Paras 17, 18)

(C) Delay in Detention Execution - Delay attributed to petitioner's evasive actions - Link between detention order and execution deemed viable despite delay; statutory safeguards in preventive detention laws upheld. (Paras 21, 38, 70)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, involved in illegal trafficking of narcotics, was detained following substantial drug seizures from his medical store. He challenged the detention order, arguing procedural lapses and questioning the legality of his arrest.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the detention order, citing overwhelming evidence of regular illicit practices, ruling that the lengthy delay in executing the order was justifiable based on the petitioner’s attempts to evade arrest.

Issues: The court addressed the legality of the detention order and the validity of procedural compliance, especially the timing of its execution and whether the detention was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that procedural safeguards are crucial, but the petitioner’s conduct was a significant factor mitigating against the quashing of the detention order, ruling that the potential threat to public order warranted preventive measures under the relevant act.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. issuance and confirmation of detention order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. challenges raised against legality of detention. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. government's counterarguments on detention justification. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. purpose and ambit of preventive detention laws. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. requirement of prompt execution in detention orders. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. explaining delay in execution of the detention order. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. petitioner's conduct regarding notification and service. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
8. examination of delay attribution to petitioner. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
9. possession of licenses and their impact on detention. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
10. collecting information before detention order issuance. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
11. breach of bail conditions as a factor for detention. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
12. delay in providing the detention order. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)
13. serving detention order in custody. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
14. final conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)

JUDGMENT

Shalinder Kaur, J. - Under assail is the preventive detention order dated 25.02.2022 issued by the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Cell [in short "PITNDPS Cell"], under Section 3 (1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [in short "PITNDPS Act"] and confirmed by Central Government, fixed the period of detention of one year from the date of detention i.e, 25.02.2022 under the provisions of Section 9 (6) of PITNDPS Act so as to prevent the petitioner from engaging in illicit trafficking of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in future.

Detention order and proceedings therein:-

2. After passing of the detention order F. No. U-11011/03/2022-PINTNDS dated 25.02.2022 by Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (PITNDPS Unit), Sh. Naresh Kumar Deputy Secretary (PITNDPS Unit) informed Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, Dehradun to take immediate necessary action to serve the detention order upon Naushad Ali S/o Late Noor Hasan R/o Bahari Kila, Kasba-Landhora Teh-Roorkee, District-Haridwar (Uttrakhand). The said communication also contained other directions with respect to the detention of the petitioner. On 25.02.2022, the Joint Secretary had also formulated the grounds on which detention order had been issued to the petitioner wherein he specifically mentioned that he had gone through the facts and other material presented by the sponsoring authority, Narcotics Control Bureau ((hereinafter referred as NCB), Sub Zonal Unit, Dehradun.

3. The facts submitted before the Joint Secretary are as under:

4. On 31.01.2021, at around 19:30 hrs, an information was received by NCB Dehradun, from Drug Inspector, Haridwar that they had recovered a significant number of medicines restricted under NDPS Act from M/s Shaad Medical Store, Landhaura, Roorkee and detained one person namely Naushad Ali. The case was to be handed over to NCB for further investigation. Thereafter a team of officers from NCB reached the Police Station Kotwali, Mangalour at around 22:30 hours. The Drug Inspector handed over the petitioner and the recovered narcotic drugs along with a detailed inspection report to NCB at Police Station Kotwali. Drug Inspector disclosed that at the time of search of Shaad Medical Store, the petitioner failed to produce a stock register and sale bills of the drugs. The report further disclosed that huge quantities of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances were recovered from the possession of the petitioner which was in contravention of Section 8 of the NDPS act punishable under Section 22 / 27A/29 of NDPS Act, the details of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top