Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. repeated ndps offenses justify preventive detention (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. detention requires vernacular grounds and bail risk (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. bail grant no bar to detention (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. empowered officers may issue pit ndps orders (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. government must specify detention places by order (Para 28 , 29 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. period runs from actual detention date (Para 30) |
| 7. orders executed as post-conviction warrants (Para 31 , 32) |
| 8. no violation of constitutional rights (Para 33) |
| 9. irregularity curable; issue compliance directions (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner, through his wife, has approached this Court invoking jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against impugned detention order dated 5th May, 2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, exercising the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 ( for short ‘PIT NDPS Act, 1988’), directing to detain the petitioner in La
Preventive detention valid despite irregularity in not specifying detention places by general/special order under Section 5 PIT NDPS Act, where material shows repeated illicit trafficking; period fro....
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence and compliance with due process, including proper communication of grounds in a comprehensible language for the detenu.
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.
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....
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 requires a live link between alleged activities and the detention order; unreasonable delays can invalidate such orders.
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
