JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC, appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent nos. 2 to 8.

2) By filing this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order of detention dated 22.10.2020 in respect of the detenu, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department (respondent no. 2), which was passed in exercise of power under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as “PIT NDPS Act” for short).

3) The mother of the petitioner, who is the detenu, was arrested on 28.07.2020 in connection with Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 501/2020 under Section 27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’). While the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the said case, she was served with an order of detention dated 22.10.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged, amongst others, grounds on which the said order has been assailed, viz., non-furnishing of police report to the detenu; non-disclosure in the detention order that the detenu could make representation to the Detaining Authority; mention in the detention order that the detenu may submit her representation before the Central/State Government, which makes it appear that the submission of representation was optional; non-disclosure of provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which puts an embargo on power of the Court to grant bail as a matter of course. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) Sayed Abdul Ala v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SCW 6974, (ii) Kamlesh Kumar Ishwar Das Patel v Union of India & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 51, (iii) Amritlal & Ors. v. Union Government through Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 341, (iv) Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik v. Union of India & Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 277, (v) Debarshi Kashyap v. The Union of India & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) 14/2020, decided on 25.06.2021, (vi) Sabam Narzari v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 993, (vii) Yumnam Ongbi Mary Jones v. State of Manipur & Ors., 2011 (4) GLT 398, (viii) Robin Dhekial Phukan v. Union of India & Ors., 2008 (2) GLT 876, (ix) Shyamal Das v. State of Tripura, 2006 (3) GLT 512, (x) Konsam Brojen Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors., (2006) 2 GLR 452, (xi) Lala Paite v. State of Manipur & ors., (1999) 3 GLR 436, (xii) Lipika Roy v. State of Assam & Ors., 1999 (3) GLT 173, (xiii) Nurjahan Begum v. State of Manipur, (1999) 2 GLR 205, (xiii) Silvister Narzary v. State of Assam & Ors., 1998 (1) GLT 259, (xiv) Nongkhogin v. State of Manipur, (1991) 2 GLJ 60.

4) Per contra, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the detention order clearly reflected that the detenu was a habitual offender of offences under NDPS Act and that she had been arrested in connection with (i) Dispur P.S. Case No. 233/2018 under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, (ii) Basistha P.S. Case No. 449/2019 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, (iii) Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 501/2020 under Section 21(a)/29 of the NDPS Act, and (iv) Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 366/2020 under Section 21(b)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that during the raid conducted on connection with Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 501/2020, a sum of Rs.74,05,600/-was recovered, which was the sale proceeds of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and that the report by the Forensic Science Laboratory had shown positive result that the seized articles were narcotics substances. It is also submitted that the copy of FIRs, seizure lists and other relevant documents were enclosed along with the ‘grounds of arrest’ dated 22.10.2020 accompanying the order