IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, ROMESH VERMA, JJ.
Pawan Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Others - Respondents
Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026
| 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 Lala Lajpat Rai District Jail Kangra at Dharamshala for three months as per the Act, which was upheld by H.P. State Advisory Board (PIT NDPS Act 1988) at Shimla (for short ‘Board’) on 11.8.2025 (Annexure P-6), extending the period of detention for further three months, praying for following reliefs:-
“i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash order dated 05th May, 2025 passed by respondent No. 1 and upheld by respondent No. 4-Board on 11.08.2025 when the period of detention has been extended for three months more;
ii). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. Fifty Lakhs only (Rs.50,00,000/- only) to the petitioner for his illegal detention w.e.f. 06.08.2025 to 11.08.2025 on which date the order of detention dated 05.05.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 which was valid till 05.08.2025 has been upheld and further respondent No. 4-Board has ordered for extension of period of detention of the petitioner for three months;
iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to place on record the proposal submitted by respondent No. 3 regarding issuance of preventive detention of the petitioner and quash the same.”
2. Petitioner had preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 10120 of 2025 on 23.6.2025 against his detention order dated 5.5.2025, however, the said Writ Petition was disposed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to lay challenge to order dated 11.8.2025 passed by the Board as well as order dated 5.5.2025, because during pendency of the said Writ Petition, the Board, vide order dated 11.8.2025, had upheld the detention order dated 5.5.2025 and had further opined that detention should be extended by further three months.
3. In sequel to opinion rendered by the Board, Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued order dated 5.9.2025 directing detention of the petitioner for another three months from the date of earlier three months detention of detenu.
4. Admittedly, petitioner is facing trial in six cases, due to recovery of contraband from him, for commission of offense punishable under Sections 20, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Details of cases is as under:-
“i. In FIR No. 27/19 dated 22.02.19 at PS Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. u/s 20 & 21 of NDPS Act around 14.17 grams of Charas and 2.55 gram of Heroin/chitta were recovered from him;
ii. In FIR No. 09/20 dated 08.01.20 of PS Kangra, District Kangra HP. u/s 21 of NDPS Act, around 11.22 Gram of Heroin/chitta was recovered from him.
iii. FIR No. 189/20 dated 02.10.2020 at PS Kangra, District Kangra HP, u/s 21, 29 of NDPS Act, around 06.10 Gram of Heroin/chitta was recovered from him.
iv. FIR No. 19/23
Harikrishan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.