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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu (hereinafter called ‘Detaining Authority’) in exercise of powers under Section 3 the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 read with SRO 247 dated 27.07.1988, passed the detention Order No. PITNDPS 51 of 2023 dated 18.10.2023 (for short ‘impugned order’), in terms whereof the petitioner namely Naveed Ahmed S/O Late Mohd Sharief R/O Village Hari, Tehsil Surankote, District Poonch (for short ‘detenue’), has been detained.

2. The impugned detention order has been challenged through the medium of the instant petition, being in breach of the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of the PIT NDPS Act. It is being pleaded in the petition that the detention order so passed against the petitioner was not addressed to detenue which shows the callousness and non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority-respondent No.2; that the detaining authority has not mentioned a word in the detention order with regard to the satisfaction drawn by it as to how it has come to the conclusion of passing the detention order. Furthermore, it is stated that the petitioner has not committed any offence nor he is involved in the commission of any offence under the NDPS Act which pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people, but without application of mind and without considering the material on record respondent-authority had issued and passed the impugned detention order which is illegal, unjustified, unwarranted under law and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Petitioner has also alleged that the order of detention and the connected documents annexed with the petition clearly show violation of right of the detenue guaranteed in terms of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the PIT NDPS Act.

3. Respondents in their counter affidavit, countered the petitioner’s submissions stating stated that the detenue was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 and had he been let free, there would have been every likelihood of his continued involvement in criminal activities. It is also being stated that the petitioner is involved in numerous criminal activities/drug peddling, smuggling engaged in the sale and purchase of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which pose a serious threat to the lives of young generation of the country and even to the economy of the UT. It is further submitted that the repeated and continuous involvement of the detenue, in the illicit trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances and his disregard towards the substantive law, it has become inevitable to detain him preventively.

4. Mr. Waqar Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the detenue, while being heard, making reference to the grounds of the detention, would argue that on a cursory look on the same it is manifest that same are vague. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority on the basis of dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Poonch, without application of mind and without evaluating the allegations made against the detenue in the said dossier, copy of which was not even provided to the detenue, proceeded to pass impugned detention order, whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged in District Jail, Poonch. It is also submitted stated that the detenue is not an English literate person and understands Urdu language only but the order of detention is in English and it is not possible for him to understand such a hyper technical language. It is also submitted that even the petitioner had filed the representation before the Detaining Authority on 19.12.2023 but the same has not been considered, as such, the detention order is liable to be quashed. In addition, learned counsel submitted that despite the bail was granted to the petitio