JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged order No. PITNDPS 61 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 (hereinafter to be referred to as (“impugned order of detention”) issued by respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu whereby he has been placed under preventive detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in activities relating to illicit traffic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

02. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order of detention on the grounds that the said order has been issued by respondent No. 2 in an arbitrary manner without application of mind. It has been contended that the petitioner has not been apprised about his right to make a representation before the Central Government. It has been further contended that petitioner is a teenager and by passing the impugned order of detention, respondent No. 2 has misused his powers. It has also been contended that DDR reports mentioned in the grounds of detention do not relate to any activities pertaining to illicit trafficking of drugs, therefore, the same could not have been made the basis for passing the impugned order of detention.

03. It has also been contended that the petitioner has already been booked in two FIRs and there were no compelling reasons for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention instead of dealing with the petitioner under normal criminal law. It has been further contended that translated version of the material relied upon for passing the impugned order of detention has not been furnished to him. It has also been contended that the allegations made in the grounds of detention are vague, lacking in material particulars and on the basis of such allegations, no effective representation could have been made by the petitioner.

04. It has been further contended that an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner had already been moved before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur but without waiting for final outcome of the said application, the impugned order of detention has been passed.

05. The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing counter affidavit of the detaining authority viz respondent No. 2. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that representation of the petitioner was considered by respondent No. 2 and the same was rejected. It has been submitted that the information regarding rejection of representation of the petitioner was duly conveyed to him through Superintendent, Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. It has been further contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed in consonance with law.

06. It has been submitted that after perusal of the record, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that it was imperative to detain the petitioner because after getting bail, he was again involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs, which was posing serious threat to the public order as well as to the health and welfare of the people. It has been submitted that ordinary law has failed to detain the petitioner from indulging in similar activities.

07. According to the respondents, whole of the material, on the basis of which grounds of detention have been formulated, has been provided to the petitioner and contents of the same have been explained to the detenue in Hindi and Dogri languages, which he understands. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was informed about his right to make representation before the Government as well as before the detaining authority. It has been further submitted that all the statutory and legal requirements were followed by the respondents while executing the detention order against the petitioner. The respondents have also produced detention record to lend support to their contentions.

08. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case including the detention record which has been produced by the respo