Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Rahul Bharti
Touseef Nabi Ganie – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
01. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
02. Perused the pleadings and the record therewith.
03. The petitioner, acting through his father, is seeking quashment of preventive detention order No. DIVCOM- “K”/70/2024 dated 18th of April, 2024 passed by the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir in exercise of power under section (3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT-NDPS) Act, 1988.
04. A case for seeking preventive detention of the petitioner was actually put forth by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Baramulla by a dossier No. Lgl/PIT- NDPS/2023/1431-34 dated 1st of June, 2023 addressed to the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.
05. This dossier remained un-responded and unacted upon at the end of the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir for almost a full period of one year when by virtue of detention order No. DIVCOM-“K”/70/2024 dated 18th of April, 2024, the petitioner came to be subjected to preventive detention custody.
06. The detention order No. DIVCOM-“K”/70/2024 dated 18th of April, 2024 came to be passed on purported grounds of detention formulated by the respondent No
Preventive detention under the PIT-NDPS Act is illegal if there is undue delay in acting on the detention request and lack of reasoning for such delay.
Preventive detention must be justified, timely, and consider the individual's legal status, such as bail, to avoid malice in law.
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 is justified to protect society from individuals engaged in anti-social and unlawful activities, and the competence of the detaining authority is determined by the legal provisio....
Preventive detention requires timely and credible evidence; undue delay and failure to address representation render detention illegal.
Preventive detention cannot be punitive; authorities must seek bail cancellation if necessary to justify detention under the PITNDPS Act.
Criminal Trial - Illicit Traffic - Seeking quashment of detention order - Detaining authority has not indicated any compelling reasons to justify the preventive detention of the detenue when he was a....
Preventive detention requires a clear link between the detenu's recent activities and the purpose of detention, with consideration of bail status being crucial.
Preventive detention must be justified and cannot be used to circumvent judicial processes, especially when the individual is already in custody.
Preventive detention upheld when justified by habitual offending despite previous delays; statutory adherence and prompt actions of authorities emphasized.
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
