Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, J
Mushtaq Ahmed S/o Nazir Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir Through Principal Secretary To Govt. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ pleadings and the record therewith.
2. The petitioner, acting through his wife, is maintaining the present habeas corpus writ petition invoking article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to regain his lost personal liberty in the face of his ongoing preventive detention which has been carried out under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1988 (in short ‘PITNDPS Act, 1988’).
3. The preventive detention of the petitioner is based upon an Order PITNDPS No. 25 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu which is being questioned in the present writ petition filed on 20.08.2024 after the petitioner had suffered almost four months in running of detention custody.
4. The case for preventive detention of the petitioner under PITNDPS Act, 1988 was, in fact, sponsored by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur who, vide his letter No. Conf./Dossier/170-73 dated 01.04.2024, submitted a dossier to the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu mentioning therein the alleged activities of the peti
Preventive detention cannot be punitive; authorities must seek bail cancellation if necessary to justify detention under the PITNDPS Act.
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....
Preventive detention requires timely and credible evidence; undue delay and failure to address representation render detention illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of preventive detention to prevent individuals from engaging in acts prejudicial to public health and welfare, as emphasized by the l....
Preventive detention is justified when there is a reasonable probability of future criminal activity, and the grounds for such detention must be clear and free from ambiguity.
Preventive detention should not be based on stale incidents and should not be used as a mode of punishment without trial.
Preventive detention must be justified, timely, and consider the individual's legal status, such as bail, to avoid malice in law.
Preventive detention requires strict justification and cannot be enacted merely on apprehension of future crimes, especially when bail has previously been granted.
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
