IMPORTANT POINT
Preventive detention under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is justified based on the authority's subjective satisfaction regarding the detenu's potential for future offenses.

ORDER :

(P. Sam Koshy, J.)

Heard Dr. Challa Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.T. Kalyan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for quashment of the order of preventive detention dated 29.02.2024 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 3(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short, the ‘Act of 1988’).

3. Vide the said impugned order, the respondent No.1 had under Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Act of 1988 passed the order of preventive detention of the detenu with a view to prevent him from engaging in Illicit Traffic of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It is this order dated 29.02.2024 which is assailed in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where in a span of eight (08) years’ time, the detenu has been charged for the offences under the Act of 1988 on four (04) occasions. Two (02) in the year 2016 and one (01) in the year 2021 and the last being in the year 2023. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in all four (04) cases, the detenu has been enlarged on bail. That of the four (04) cases, only one has still date been concluded and the other three (03) cases are yet to be finalized. Therefore, it was improper and not justified on the part of respondent No.1 in passing the impugned order of preventive detention under the Act of 1988 against the detenu.

5. It was the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the detenu has got bail in all the four (04) cases registered against him itself goes to show that, prima facie, the case of the prosecution is too weak and when no case was made out, the question of detenu being subjected to preventive detention for these cases is totally unwarranted and arbitrary. It was further contended that bare allegations that are leveled in the impugned order itself makes it explicit that the detenu has not been directly implicated in the instant cases, but has been implicated at the behest of other persons, which all the more weakens the case of the respondents and for which reason also the order of preventive detention is not justified.

6. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fact that the detenu is implicated in four (04) cases in a gap of eight (08) years itself is an indication of the detenu not being a habitual offender or the offences being committed at a close interval period. Likewise, it was also the contention that the authorities concerned had wrongly reached to the conclusion of the activities of the detenu to be prejudicial to the society and that his acts would be detrimental to the society at large.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied upon a recent decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Taimoor khan vs. Union of India & Anr, (2024) SSC OnLine Del 416 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banka Sneha Sheela vs. State of Telangana & Ors, (2021) 9 SCC 415.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents referring to the impugned order contended that plain reading of the impugned order itself is self-explanatory and would clearly give a picture of the track record of the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it is a case where the detenu has been repeatedly found to be committing offences under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of a serious nature and each time the petitioner has been found in possession of huge quantities of Alprazolam, Ketamine Hydrochloride, so also Mephedrone. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, all these aforementioned substances are products which are otherwise banned products under the provisions of the Act of 1988 and that the detenu was found to be manufacturing these banned products and was selling it in the open market through his agents and