JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order No. PITNDPS 32 of 2025 dated 09.06.2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as “impugned order of detention”) issued by respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu whereby while exercising powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as “PITNDPS”), the detaining authority has ordered preventive detention of the petitioner.

02. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the grounds that the same has been passed without application of mind. It has been contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed with an objective, which is alien to the object contemplated by Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act. It has been further contended that there is no proximate and live link between the alleged incidents forming basis of the grounds of detention with the order of detention as a result of which the same becomes unsustainable in law. It has also been contended that the State had filed an application seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner in FIR No. 66/2024 of Police Station, Bari Brahmana but the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samba dismissed the said application on 02.06.2025, which prompted the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention.

03. It has also been contended that the petitioner was not informed about his right to make a representation against the impugned order of detention before the detaining authority. It has further been contended that whole of the material, forming basis of the grounds of detention, has not been provided to the petitioner as a result of which he was unable to make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. It has further been contended the grounds of detention have not been explained to the petitioner in Gojri language. According to the petitioner, he is an illiterate person and cannot understand any language other than Gojri language.

04. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit of respondent No. 2-the detaining authority. In the counter affidavit, it has been contended that the petitioner, after getting bail in the cases in which he was booked, again involved himself in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs, which was posing threat to the public order as well as to the health and welfare of the people. Accordingly, the detaining authority, after examining the dossier submitted by SSP, Samba has drawn subjective satisfaction about the imperative need to pass the detention order against the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order of detention was passed.

05. It has been submitted that while executing the warrant of detention, entire material along with grounds of detention etc (total 53 leaves) were furnished to the petitioner and the contents thereof were explained to him in Hindi and Urdu language. It has been contended that the petitioner was involved in illicit traffic of drugs, which led to registration of two FIRs viz FIR No. 139/2023 and FIR No. 66 of 2024 against the petitioner and after getting bail in these cases, he continued to indulge in illicit trafficking as the ordinary law failed to deter him. In order to lend support to the aforesaid contentions, the respondents have produced the detention record.

06. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record.

07. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has raised numerous grounds for assailing the impugned order of detention, yet during the course of arguments, he has laid much emphasis on the following grounds:

(i) That there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention inasmuch as the said order has been passed for an objective, which is alien to the purpose men