IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, Rajnish Bhatnagar, JJ.
Sharafat Sheikh @ Md. Ayub - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 1213 of 2021
Decided On : 02-09-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of the illegal drug activity. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments against detention and the rights of the detenue. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. defense's stance on the merits of the detention order. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's analysis of constitutional requirements for effective communication. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. detention orders quashed for constitutional non-compliance. (Para 36) |
| 6. conclusion and directions for quashing the detention. (Para 37) |
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been instituted for quashing; 1) the impugned detention order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India u/s 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS) and 2) the impugned Order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India u/s 9(f) of the PITNDPS confirming the detention order for a period of one year along with supporting affidavit.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, on 23.07.2020, on the basis of specific information, the IGIS Crime Branch, Dwarka intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. DL 14 CE 7993 and two persons namely Md. Nasir Hussain S/o Taj Mohd. R/o H. No. 175, Nizam Nagar, Hazrat Nizamuddin, Delhi and Md. Rafiq @ Ibrahim @ Peerji (hereinafter "Rafiq"), S/o Md. Hanif, R/o Village Botal Ganj, PS-Pipiya Mandi, Tehsil, Malharagh, Dist. Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh were apprehended and 3 kg Heroin was recovered from the bag from their possessions. Both the accused persons were arrested and the recovered heroin was seized under the NDPS Act, 1985. At the time of arrest accused Rafiq disclosed that the said contraband i.e. Heroin was procured by him from Village Baba Kheri, Distt. Mandsaur, M.P at the behest of Sharafat Sheikh (hereinafter "the detenue"), S/o Sheikh Janul R/o G-13, 2nd Floor, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi. He further disclosed that the contraband was to be delivered by him to the detenue. On 21.08.2020 and 24.08.2020 statements of the detenue was recorded wherein he inter-alia, stated that he has completed his studies till the 8th standard and that, he is a permanent resident of Kishan Ganj. He had come to Delhi from his village in the year 1975 and after coming to Delhi, he has stated to have worked as a scrap dealer in the Nizamuddin area; and that, thereafter he started dealing in Smack and started earning huge amount of money. The detenue further stated that, till date in the cases of smack/theft, in the jurisdiction police station Nizamuddin and other police stations of Delhi, he has been arrested in 70-80 cases; and has taken many properties in the area of Kishan Ganj (Bihar), Delhi and Mumbai. In the past he was also caught by the police with Heroin and was subsequently imprisoned. In the year 2005, he was arrested under the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and his properties were seized by the Court.
3. After his release from the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 case, he was in the jail for a period of two months and after being released out from jail he again started the work of Smack, for which he contacted his old dealers of heroin and started to sell in the area of Nizamuddin. He also contacted his old supplier/known, namely, Rafiq, who is a R/o Village Botalganj, Police station Pipliya Mandi District Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, the detenue also met with his son namely, Washim Sheikh, and his cousin brother namely, Feroz Alam. In a period of one year, the detenue demanded heroine 30-40 times from the said Rafiq and purchased the heroin for an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs per kilogram. Rafiq used to come to Delhi 3-4 times in a month and the detenue also took the heroin for Rafiq from Madhya Pradesh and during t
Detention orders under preventive laws must communicate grounds in a language understood by the detainee; failure to do so violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5).
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detenue, being illiterate, must have the grounds of detention explained to him in a language he understands, as mandated by Article 22(5) ....
Preventive detention requires a clear link between past conduct and future risk; failure to communicate grounds in an understandable language violates constitutional rights.
The grounds for preventive detention must be communicated in a language the detenu understands to ensure the right to make effective representation, as mandated by Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
A detenu has a fundamental right under Article 22(5) that grounds on which a detention order has been made against him, be communicated to him as soon as may be and that he be afforded an opportunity....
Detention orders must communicate grounds in an understandable language and demonstrate legal compliance, particularly regarding the detenu's probable release on bail and overall threat assessment.
(1) Preventive detention – There is subtle difference between background facts leading to detention order and grounds of detention – Effective knowledge qua a detenu is of utmost importance.(2) In a ....
Preventive detention orders are invalidated if the grounds for detention are communicated in illegible or untranslated documents, infringing the detenu's constitutional rights to make effective repre....
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.