Preventive detention must be based on current threats and not solely on past conduct; reliance on stale incidents undermines legality.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.

1. The batch of above 09 writ petitions is being decided by a common judgment as they raise a common point of law.

2. The brief facts of the respective cases are extracted as under:

CWP No. 22223 of 2023: Sadha Ram @ Bhajna Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

3. The petitioner has sought quashing of the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 vide which the respondent-State had passed an order of preventive detention against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’), on the ground that the petitioner is involved in six other cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, 1985), which is tabulated as under:

4. As per the order of detention, it has been noticed by the respondent-authorities that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in possession, sale and transportation of narcotic drugs especially poppy-husk, opium and intoxicating tablets. It is further recorded that he is engaged in this illegal trade for the last 26 years and had been convicted in 04 cases by the trial Court but notwithstanding such conviction, he has actively involved himself in possession, sale and transportation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The detention order was followed by the grounds of detention dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) furnished to the petitioner.

5. The arguments raised for the petitioner are that the order of detention is illegal and that out of the six cases tabulated above, the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in appeal in three cases including in FIR No. 114 dated 29.08.2014. It is submitted that the petitioner has been convicted only in one case and that in another case i.e. FIR No. 61 dated 19.03.2021, there is no attribution to the petitioner and that the recovery of 55 grams of opium has been effected from Gurmukh (co-accused/son of the petitioner) and only an amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from him. The petitioner was nominated in the said case with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and he is already on bail in the said case. He submits that even though the detention order mentioned that the petitioner is involved in the narcotic trade for the last 26 years, however, only two cases had been registered uptil 2014 and he has been convicted only in two cases and that over a span of five years after 2