The right to personal liberty must be safeguarded, and any deprivation of liberty must be in accordance with the law, with a live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. CHOWDHARY, J.

1. This intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant Jahangir Ahmed Dar against the judgment/order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in a Writ Petition W.P. (Crl) No. 732/2022 titled Jahangir Ahmed Dar vs. UT of J&K and Others, whereby his plea to quash Order No. DIVCOM-K/279/22 dated 19.10.2022 (for short “detention order”) passed in terms of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 by the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir (hereinafter called “the Commissioner”).

2. The appellant/petitioner vide detention order dated 19.10.2022, had been directed to be detained in preventive custody, in terms of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 by the Commissioner. The appellant/petitioner while challenging the order passed by the Commissioner had contented in his petition that he had been implicated falsely in case FIR No. 04/2021 for the commission of offences punishable under sections 8/20 NDPS Act and in that case he had been admitted to bail by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, besides plea that he was suffering from ailments of constipation and bleeding. The detention order was also assailed that the grounds of detention were vague on the basis of which no prudent man can make an effective representation and if the impugned order of detention is allowed to be executed, the same will result in grave economic crisis to the petitioner as he may loose his job; that no fresh activity as alleged in the grounds of detention and that the impugned order has been passed in hot haste.

3. The respondents filed their reply before the writ Court asserting that the appellant/petitioner was a hardcore drug peddler who had been instigating/motivating immature youth in his area to indulge in drug addiction and drug peddling and that in view of the past conduct of the appellant/petitioner having immoral and illegal criminal tendencies, he had been directed to be taken into preventive custody, with further allegation that he was trading in narcotic substances, sells the same to youth, drivers and college going students, as such, his activities were required to be curbed.

4. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment after discussing and relying upon the law laid down in Government of India and Others vs. Alka Subhah Gadia, (1992) Supp. (1) SSC 496 and Subhash Popatlal Dave vs. Union of India and Another, (2012) 7 SCC 533, rejected the plea of the appellant/petitioner for quashing of the order of detention impugned in the writ petition.

5. The appellant/petitioner having been aggrieved of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge challenged the same through the medium of this appeal, on the grounds that the grounds of challenge pleaded in the Writ Petition were not appreciated as no reference has been made thereof; that the judgment is perverse both on facts and law; that note of the fact that the last alleged activity was in the month of March 2021, whereas the order of detention was passed in October 2021; that the appellant/petitioner was already on bail at the time of passing of the detention order which clearly reflected non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority to most of the material and vital facts vitiating the requisite satisfaction; that there was no justification with the Detaining Authority to pass the detention order that there being no live link or any fresh activity; that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the important issues involved in the matter and passed the impugned order contrary to the well settled principles of law and that the detention order passed on 19.10.2022 had not been executed till date nor the respondents have taken any steps to seek execution of detention order in accordance with law despite the fact that the appellant/petitioner was all along available for exe