Point of Law: Section 13 of Act provides for interim release of a detenue for a specified period on executing bond with or without sureties.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Sr. Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the State/respondents and Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya, learned CGC for the respondent No. 1.

PETITIONER’S GRIEVANCE:

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner on behalf of his brother-in-law Shahrukh Ahmed @Muktar, the detenue herein vide paragraph No. 2 of the petition (the Affidavit is sworn by detenue’s wife Manowara Begum) has prayed for setting aside and quashing a Preventive Detention Order, dated 16.03.2022, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home & Political Department/respondent No. 2 to the petitioner informing him with detail particulars about his involvement in illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, with reference to 07 (seven) number of cases registered at Barpeta Police Station under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘N.D.P.S. Act’ for short) which prompted the Government to detain him under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short). By conveying the aforesaid detention order, the petitioner was asked to make a representation, through the Jail Authority, if so advised. Terming his detention as illegal, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to release him forthwith.

ARGUMENTS:

(For the Petitioner)

3. Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenue was served with the aforesaid grounds of detention referred to in the letter, dated 16.03.2022, after lapse of 5(five) days, on 23.03.2022. Mr. Dutta submitted that the detenue submitted his representation to the respondent No. 2, on 30.03.2022 and again, another representation on behalf of the detenue, on 07.04.2022, to the respondent No. 2, but no response has been received yet from the said detaining authority, whereby the authority violated the detenue’s rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Mr. Dutta submitted that the aforesaid impugned Preventive Detention Order, dated 16.03.2022 issued by the respondent No. 2 is per se illegal and violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Dutta emphatically submitted that the present detenue has been detained based on statements of some accused persons of the aforementioned 07(seven) cases, which is not admissible in evidence. Mr. Dutta further contended that the Preventive Detention Order of the detenue, dated 16.03.2022, was passed purportedly under Section 3(1) of the Act based on allegations made in the aforesaid 07(seven) number of cases under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, where the learned Court has already granted him bail, after due examination of the relevant police papers.

5. Mr. Dutta further submitted that the aforesaid Detention Order has been issued violating the prescribed procedure in the Act and without sufficient application of mind of the detaining authority to the materials allegedly placed by the police. Mr. Dutta also submitted that the grounds of detention were not communicated to the detenue within the stipulated period of 05(five) days as required under Section 3(3) of the Act and his two representations against the aforesaid Preventive Detention Order submitted to the detaining authority, dated 30.03.2022 and 07.04.2022 respectively were not considered as no communication whatsoever has been received by him. Mr. Dutta submitted that although as per the provisions of the Act, the detenue is entitled to be furnished with copy of the dossiers and police report which allegedly culminated in his preventive detention also have not been provided to him. Therefore, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel emphatically sub