Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
RAHUL BHARTI, J
SURINDER SINGH TH LEELA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
U T OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY HOME DEPTT AND OTHERS – Respondent
HCP 6 / 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ-pleadings, documents attached therewith and also examined the detention record produced by Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG.
2. For the alleged activities of the petitioner in reference to FIR no. 76 of 2021, FIR no. 08 of 2022, FIR no. 187 of 2023, Daily Diary vide DD no. 20 dated 31.12.2023, Daily Diary vide DD no. 15 of 02.01.2024 all relatable to alleged acts of omission or commission on the part of the petitioner purportedly falling within the mischief of Prevention of Illicit Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (in short “PIT NDPS” ) Act, 1988, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Doda submitted a dossier vide letter No. Conf/PIT/2024/308/C dated 04.01.2024 to the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu seeking preventive dentition of the petitioner under the PITNDPS Act, 1988.
3. The respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came to act upon the said dossier to arrive at a conclusion based upon subjective satisfaction that a case for preventive detention of the petitioner falling within the mischief of section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 was made out and, consequently, an Order No. PITNDPS 01 of 2024 dated 06.01.2024 came to be passed thereby directing preventive dentition of the petitioner and his arrest to be detained in District Jail, Bhaderwah.
4. Consequent to said detention order, the petitioner came to be taken into custody by the PSI - Roshan Lal EXJ-196770, Police Post Bhalla on 06.01.2024 itself and his person came to be entrusted to the Superintendent Jail, Bhaderwah.
5. At the time of execution of the dentition order, the petitioner came to be handed over the order of detention/grounds of detention/dossier/copies of FIRs/statements and other documents bearing compilation of 39 leaves.
6. Following the mandate of PITNDPS Act, 1988, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide his communication No. 601/RA/Detention/02/CC-7383127 dated 06.01.2024 apprised the petitioner about the passing of preventive detention order against him and also his right to make a representation both to the Government as well as to the detaining authority i.e. the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.
7. The respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu vide his communication No. 601/RA/Detention/03/CC-7383127 dated 06.01.2024 apprised the Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary) Home Department, J&K about the passing of the detention order by the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu against the petitioner.
8. Upon his detention, the petitioner acting through his mother – Leela Devi came to submit a written representation dated 12.01.2024 to the Govt. of UT of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of UT of J&K thereby seeking setting aside/revocation of the preventive detention order on the grounds as set out in the said representation. The respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu at his end also came to forward said representation so received by him from the petitioner to the Govt. of UT of J&K through the medium of a communication No. 601/RA/CC-7383127 dated 19.01.2024.
9. The preventive detention of the petitioner came to be submitted by the Govt. of UT of J&K to the Advisory Board for its opinion with respect to legitimacy of the preventive detention so ordered against the petitioner and, accordingly, the Advisory Board, in terms of its opinion dated 18.01.2024, came to opine that the preventive detention of the petitioner was justified. In its opinion report, the Advisory Board made a categoric reference that there was no representation made against his preventive detention by the petitioner.
10. Following the opinion report of the Advisory Board, the Govt. of UT of J&K, by virtue of a Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/204 of 2024 dated 24.01.2024, came to confirm the detention order No. PITNDPS 01 of 2024 dated 06.01.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Comm
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detaining authority must exercise independent judgment and inform the detainee of the right to make a representation against the detention....
Detention order - Failure of the Department to send a report as mandated under Section 3(2) to the Central Government within 10(ten) days as well as the mandate of Section 9(f) for confirmation of an....
Section 13 of Act provides for interim release of a detenue for a specified period on executing bond with or without sureties.
Preventive detention under the NDPS Act is upheld when procedural compliance is confirmed, and compelling societal protection against drug trafficking is demonstrated.
The suppression of material facts, such as failed attempts to cancel bail, from the detention dossier vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, rendering the preventive detenti....
Preventive detention must be based on current and relevant facts; failure to consider a petitioner's representation and provide complete grounds renders the detention illegal.
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
