IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, AMIT SHARMA, JJ.
Pabbar Giri @ Vijay - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 2114 Of 2024
Decided On : 14-11-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Section 3(1) - Detention order challenged on grounds of illegal detention and non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority - The court found considerable delay in passing the detention order, with no live link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the detention order, leading to the conclusion that the detention was unjustified. (Paras 12-21)
(B) Preventive Detention - The court emphasized that preventive detention should not be used when the ordinary law can address the situation, and the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority must be based on cogent material. (Paras 20-21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the PITNDPS Act based on previous narcotics-related charges, but the court found that the detention order was issued after an unreasonable delay without sufficient justification.
Findings of Court:
The detention order was quashed due to lack of justification and failure to demonstrate a likelihood of the petitioner engaging in prejudicial activities if released.
Issues: The main issues included the delay in passing the detention order and whether the Detaining Authority had sufficient grounds to justify the detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detention order was invalid due to the absence of a live link between the alleged activities and the detention, and the failure to apply the necessary legal standards.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the detention order was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Amit Sharma, J.)
1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) seeks the following prayers:
ii. Issue Writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction in the nature thereof, thereby directing the respondents to place on record both the sets of original relied upon documents i.e., Hindi and English, which were provided to the petitioner while detaining him under section 3(1) of the prevention of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1988 by the respondents.”
iii. any other order, as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the matter in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”
2. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are as under:
i. The present Petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the following cases:
b.) FIR No. 202/2016 under Sections 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS: Crime Branch, Delhi for the effected recovery of 81.25 kgs. Of Ganja (from the possession of the Petitioner and the co-accused therein). The Petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 18th October, 2018, passed by the Learned Special Judge (NDPS), Dwarka Courts, Delhi.
c.) FIR No. 157/2023 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, registered at PS: Ranhola, Delhi for the total effected recovery of 101.65 kgs. of Ganja (35 kgs. and 250 grams of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the Petitioner himself). The chargesheet in this matter was filed against the Petitioner and the co-accused(s) and the Petitioner filed a bail application, which was dismissed vide order dated 23rd September, 2023 by the Learned Special Judge (NDPS), West, Delhi.
ii. On the basis of the alleged involvement of the Petitioner in the aforesaid cases, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, ANTF, Delhi, i.e., the Sponsoring Authority submitted a proposal dated 8th December, 2023 to the Joint Secretary (PITNDPS) to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, i.e., the Detaining Authority (Respondent no. 2) under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PITNDPS Act’). Further information and documents were received from the Sponsoring Authority by Respondent no. 2 on 25th January, 2024; who subsequently forwarded the proposal to the Screening Committee on 29th January, 2024. The said proposal was considered by the Screening Committee on 8th February, 2024 and the same was held to be fit for preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act.
iii. Thereafter, Respondent no. 2 on 21st February, 2024 issued the detention order bearing F. No. U-11011/07/2024-PITNDPS under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act,
Ameena Begum vs. State of Telangana and Others (2023) 9 SCC 587
Anand Prakash v. State of U.P. and Others
Common Cause v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667
Haradhan Saha v. State of W.B., (1975) 3 SCC 198
Icchu Devi Choraria v. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 531
Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another
Rajinder Arora vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 4 SCC 796
Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 33
Rekha v. State of T.N., (2011) 5 SCC 244
Smt. Shashi Aggarwal v. State of U.P. and Others
Suraj Pal Sahu v. State of Maharashtra and others
T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, (1989) 4 SCC 741, 1990 SCC (Cri) 76
Preventive detention requires a live link between alleged activities and the detention order; unreasonable delays can invalidate such orders.
Preventive detention orders must consider the detenu's current custody and likelihood of bail; failure to do so invalidates the detention.
Preventive detention requires strict compliance with statutory safeguards and justifications for delay, ensuring protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The main legal point established is that in preventive detention, prompt action is crucial, and the detaining authority must consider all vital facts influencing the decision to detain. Unreasonable ....
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 orders must consider all vital documents, including bail orders, as their omission can invalidate the order.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.