Preventive detention is justified when there is reasonable suspicion of future offenses, emphasizing that it is not punitive but precautionary in nature.

JUDGMENT :

01. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, has invoked Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1998, read with SRO 247 of 1998 dated 27.07.1988, to detain the petitioner Narvir Singh, vide order No. PITNDPS 44 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023. The detenue has assailed the legality and correctness of the impugned detention order in this petition.

02. The detenue was detained as per the grounds of detention after considering his involvement in FIR No. 39/2022 under Sections 8/21/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act; FIR No. 89/2023 under Sections 8/9/21/22/27-A of NDPS Act and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, and also on the basis of complaints received against him, including preventive measures under Section 110 CrPC, registered at Police Station Satwari.

03. The detaining authority after considering the dossier presented by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu and repeated involvement of the detenue in sale and purchase of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances cases, arrived at a subjective satisfaction to prevent the detenue from committing any offence by indulging in illicit trafficking of the drugs and, accordingly, issued the detention order.

04. The impugned order of detention has been assailed by the detenue on the ground that the order of detention is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. The detaining authority has not applied its mind while passing the order of detention and there is no subjective satisfaction while passing the order of detention. The order of detention suffers from vice of excessiveness because allegations leveled in the order of detention against the detenue are false. The respondents have not provided all the material relied upon by the detaining authority to the detenue while passing the order of detention. The detenue was also not provided the material relied upon by the detaining authority, which was neither communicated to the detenue nor legible copies were provided to him.

05. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the detenue that the detention is also unsustainable on the ground that the respondents have mentioned wrong statute while executing the order of detention. This apart, the detenue also submits that there was no basis with the detaining authority for forming an opinion that the detenue was posing a threat to the society as the case was never referred to the Advisory Board.

06. Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG, has filed the counter affidavit as well as produced the record. The respondents submit that the detenue has been detained under the provisions of PITNDPS for his repeated and continuous involvement in sale and purchase of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances after careful examination of the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu.

07. It is also stated that despite being tried under NDPS Act for repeated and continuous offences, the detenue after getting bail was again involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and was posing a serious threat to public order as well as health and welfare of public at large. The ordinary law has failed to deter the detenue as is evident from the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu. All the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority. The detenue has been provided all the relevant documents along with detention order, grounds of detention explained to him in the language which he understands and he was also informed of his right to make a representation.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record.

09. The detaining authority has observed that the detenue is continuously engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which poses a serious threat to public health and safety. The detaining authority, after recording its subjective satisfaction, has passed