Preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, is aimed at protecting society from activities likely to deprive people of their right to life and personal liberty.

JUDGMENT :

TASHI RABSTAN, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant’s Writ Petition being W.P. (Crl) No. 66/2022 titled Anil Sharma vs. Union Territory of J&K and Others seeking quashment of detention order No. PITNDPS 20 of 2022 dated 24.09.2022, issued by Respondent No. 2 the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the Detaining Authority), was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has assailed the judgment impugned dated 15.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, inter-alia, on the following grounds:

“(a) That the bare perusal of the judgment impugned makes it amply clear that the same has been passed by the learned Single Judge by not appreciating the fact that it was an admitted fact that the Appellant herein was never provided all the relevant material forming part of the dossier, that too, in the language which the Appellant understood as per the mandate of law.

(b) That the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that bare perusal of the order of detention impugned makes it amply clear that the same has been issued by Respondent No. 2 in an extremely casual and mechanical manner, and without proper application of mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

(c) That the order of detention as also the copies of dossier and other relevant documents were never provided to the Appellant within the stipulated period as prescribed under Section 3(3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

(d) That the reasons enshrined in the order of detention is contrary to the views as repeatedly expressed by hon’ble the Supreme Court that even if a person is granted bail wrongly, there are well-known remedies in the ordinary law to take care of the situation. That State can always prefer appeal against the bail order granted and/or apply for the cancellation of bail. Merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under-trial prisoner was released on bail, an order of detention under any preventive detention law should not ordinarily be passed. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, the above stated detention order dated 24.09.2022 is patently illegal, thus, the Judgment impugned as also the order of detention, as such, is required to be set aside.”

3. The appellant/writ petitioner has challenged detention Order No. PITNDPS No. 20 of 2022 dated 24.09.2022 foisted upon him by respondent No. 2 the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu before the writ Court by filing petition bearing W.P. (Crl.) No. 66/2022 being the same in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with provisions of PITNDPS and also the same is alleged to have been passed arbitrarily and in a mala-fide manner without application of mind, as the detaining authority has not provided the grounds of detention, copies of dossier and other related documents in the language which the detenue understands and, as such, he has been prevented in making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention within time.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has not mentioned a word in the detention order with regard to the satisfaction drawn by it as to how it has come to the conclusion of passing the detention order. Furthermore, it is stated that the appellant/writ petitioner has not committed any offence nor is he involved in the commission of any offence under the NDPS Act, which pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people, but the respondents without the application of mind and without considering the material on record had issued and passed the impugned detention order which is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted under law and as such the same is liable to be quashed. It is also the submission of learned counsel for t