Back
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Reshama W/o Mohmmad Ali @ Bablu – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 (here
Preventive detention laws allow for detention despite bail status if there is a reasonable belief of future offenses based on past conduct.
Preventive detention requires strict compliance with statutory safeguards and justifications for delay, ensuring protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
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 quashed for lack of subjective satisfaction: 8-year gap between cases, acquittal in one, incidental recovery during warrant execution fail to establish live proximate link to pub....
Preventive detention under the Karnataka Act is valid when supported by substantial evidence of threats to public order, and procedural safeguards are adhered to.
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....
Preventive detention must be based on current threats and not solely on past conduct; reliance on stale incidents undermines legality.
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 ....
(1) Preventive detention – There is fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order” – Mere registration of three offences by itself would not have any bearing on maintenance of public ord....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
