Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
RAHUL BHARTI
Sakeena Bano – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAHUL BHARTI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents. Perused the respective side’s pleadings and the documents accompanying therewith. Also perused the detention record produced from the end of the respondents.
2. The petitioner-Sakeena Bano acting through her husband-Siraj-u-din Khan came forward with the institution of the present writ petition on 14.05.2025 while being in the state of preventive detention custody slapped upon her by the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir by reference to the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (PITNDPS) Act, 1988.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam, by virtue of a letter No. PSA-Cell/Dossier/2025/276-79 dated 08.03.2025, had submitted a dossier to the respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir by reporting alleged activities of the petitioner reckoned to fall within scope of mischief of PITNDPS Act, 1988 warranting her preventive detention which consequently resulted in issuance of the detention order No. DIVCOM“K”/62/2025 dated 03.04.2025 ordering preventive detention of the petitioner and her confinement in the Central Ja
Preventive detention cannot be punitive; authorities must seek bail cancellation if necessary to justify detention under the PITNDPS Act.
Preventive detention under PITNDPS valid despite bail if conditions insufficient to prevent drug trafficking, distinct from BNSS proceedings.
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
