IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention laws allow for detention despite bail status if there is a reasonable belief of future offenses based on past conduct.

ORDER :

1. This habeas corpus petition assails detention order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Government of Rajasthan (Department of Home) by which the husband of the petitioner has been detained for a period of one year under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’).

2. Quintessential facts, necessary for decision of the present case, are that the petitioner is the wife of detenue Mohammad Ali @ Bablu. She has stated on affidavit that on the basis of requisition made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, South, Jaipur to the Secretary, Home (Law) for initiating action and detention of her husband, proceedings were drawn under the Act of 1988 which culminated into passing of impugned order dated 11.12.2023 on recording satisfaction that it has become necessary to pass an order with a view to preventing the detenue from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The basis for such satisfaction was registration of eight criminal cases against the detenue under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1985’).

3. In the petition, it has also been stated that charge sheets have been filed only in five cases which are under trial, but so far the detenue has not been convicted in any of the cases and has been granted bail in all cases by the concerned court. Aggrieved by order of detention, earlier D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 6/2024 was filed which came to be disposed off vide order dated 06.03.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy in case order of detention is confirmed by the Advisory Board. The petitioner, thereafter, came to know that vide order dated 19.02.2024, order of detention has been extended for a period of one year till 10th December, 2024. It is also stated that the detenue was not provided with complete set of documents except those mentioned in the petition regarding detention but the order passed by the Advisory Board was also not supplied.

4. In the reply filed by Respondents No. 1 to 4 and Respondent No. 7, the averments made in the petition have been denied. According to the respondents, husband of the petitioner is continuously involved in commission of offences under the Act of 1985, which is reflected from the fact that as many as eight criminal cases under that very Act have been registered against him. Satisfaction was arrived at on the basis of repeated commission of offences under the Act of 1985 and upon consideration of various material on record and relevant information, the authority arrived at satisfaction that it has become necessary to pass an order of detention to prevent the petitioner’s husband (detenue) from committing further offences under the Act of 1985. It is also stated that not only the order of detention, but the grounds thereof were also supplied to the detenue. The order of detention was sent for approval of the Advisory Board, which held its meeting and after consideration of the material, the Advisory Board found that there is sufficient cause for detention. According to the respondents, petitioner’s husband is involved in illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and despite repeated action and arrests, he has not shown any signs of improvement and has become serious threat to the health and welfare of the people and to prevent the society from this menace, it was considered necessary to pass an order of detention of the detenue.

5. On the earlier date of hearing, this Court directed learned counsel for the official respondents to produce the opinion of Advisory Board, which has also been placed before the Court for perusal and the same is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made following submissions:

6.1 Though the detenue had demanded various documents, the documents except those annexed w