Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11326

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Manoj Jain, JJ
SHAHID KHAN @ CHOTE PRADHAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(CRL)-224/2023

Mr. U.A. Khan, Mr. Shahrukh Khan and Mr. Tushar Upadhyaya, Advocates. Mr. Amit Tiwari, Mr. Sahaj Garg and Ms. Chetanya Puri, Advocates for R1/UOI. Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC (Crl.) for the State with Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocate.

Preventive detention requires compelling reasons, especially when the individual is already in custody; mere apprehension of future misconduct is insufficient.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Sections 3(1) and 9(f) - Quashing of detention order - Detention order was challenged on grounds of lack of satisfaction by the authority regarding necessity of detention, especially as the petitioner was already in judicial custody for a substantial period without any evidence of prejudicial activity during incarceration - The court emphasized that preventive detention requires compelling reasons, particularly when the individual is already in custody, and that mere apprehension is insufficient - The detaining authority failed to demonstrate a real possibility of the petitioner being released on bail and engaging in illicit activities thereafter. (Paras 1, 2, 15, 22, 27)

(B) Judicial Review - The court held that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is subject to judicial review, particularly when there is a lack of cogent material to justify the detention. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was detained under the PITNDPS Act based on involvement in three drug-related cases, but the detention order was challenged on the grounds of lack of evidence of ongoing illicit activity while in custody.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the detaining authority did not provide sufficient justification for the detention order, particularly given the petitioner's ongoing custody and lack of evidence suggesting imminent release or likelihood of engaging in illicit activities.

Issues: The main issues included whether the detaining authority had sufficient grounds to justify the detention of a person already in custody and whether the subjective satisfaction of the authority could withstand judicial scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the detaining authority must provide compelling reasons for preventive detention, especially when the individual is already incarcerated, and that mere apprehension is not sufficient to justify such detention.

Result: The petition was allowed, and the detention order was quashed.

JUDGEMENT

MANOJ JAIN, J

1. Petitioner has sought quashing of detention order dated 27.05.20221 and also consequent confirmation order dated 12.08.20222 and has prayed for his release from the preventive detention passed under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 1 Detention Order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (PITNDPS) Act 1988 vide Detention Order No. U-11011/06/22-PITNDPS 2 Order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the Joint Secretary, Govt. of India under Section 9 (f) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (PITNDPS) Act 1988 vide Detention Order No. U-11012/06/22-PITNDPS Substance Act 1988 (in short PITNDPS Act).

2. Petitioner has sought revocation of the above impugned orders on the ground that these have been passed in a perfunctory manner and there is nothing to indicate that the concerned authority had recorded its due satisfaction indicating necessity of detaining him. It is claimed that since petitioner was already in judicial custody for substantial period and since there was no material to show that he had indulged in any prejudicial activity while under such incarceration, there was no reason or occasion to have passed the detention order. It is also claimed that there was nothing before the concerned authority to suggest that there was any likelihood of his getting released from the custody or suggesting propensity on his part to engage in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance once he was to be released. Reliance has been placed on S. Amutha Vs. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2022) 2 CriCC 755 ; Pramod Singla Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 374 ; Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 1708/2022; Sama Aruna Vs. State of Telangana & Anr. (2018) 12 SCC 150; T.A. Abdul Rahaman Vs. State of Kerala & Others (1989) 4 SCC 741 ; Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors. (1990) Cri.L.J. 1232 ; Rashid Kapadia Vs. Medha Gadgil & Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 745; Ramlal Ratanlal Anjana Vs. UOI & Ors. 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 996; Nutan J. Patel (Ms.) Vs. S.V. Prasad & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 315; Amritlal & Ors. Vs. Union Govt. through Secretary Ministry of Finance & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 341, Dharampal Verma Vs. UOI & Ors. 2002 SCC OnLine Del 1186; Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. UOI & Ors. 1995 4 SCC 51 and Bachan Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. 1990 SCC OnLine Del 245.

3. Let us note the facts germane to the disposal of present writ petition.

4. The Sponsoring Authority is Crime Branch (Narcotics), Delhi.

Such Sponsoring Authority brought it to the notice of the concerned authority under PITNDPS Act about the involvement of the petitioner in three cases.

5. Details of these three cases are as under: -

S. No.	FIR No.	Under Section	Police Station
1	253/2021	21/25/29 NDPS Act	Crime Branch, Delhi
2	159/2021	21/25/29 NDPS Act	Crime Branch, Delhi
3	69/2021	21/25/29 NDPS Act	Crime Branch, Delhi

S. No.	FIR No.	Under Section	Police Station
1	253/2021	21/25/29 NDPS Act	Crime Branch, Delhi
2	159/2021	21/25/29 NDPS Act	Crime Branch, Delhi
3	69/2021	21/25/29 NDPS Act	Crime Branch, Delhi

6. As far as first case i.e. FIR No. 253/2021 is concerned, petitioner along with his nephew was found in conscious possession of 20 kgs. heroin and they both were arrested on 18.08.2021. Undoubtedly, it’s quite a substantial quantity as the commercial quantity starts from 250 grams onwards.

7. Even as per the facts mentioned in the detention order, there was no conscious recovery of any contraband from the possession of the petitioner in relation to the second case i.e. FIR No. 159/2021. In said case, the concerned investigating agency had apprehended one person, namely, Hukum Chand @ Titu and from his possession contraband i.e. heroin was recovered and during course of the investigat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11326

HIGH COURT OF DELHISuresh Kumar Kait, Manoj Jain, JJSHAHID KHAN @ CHOTE PRADHAN – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA & ANR. – RespondentW.P.(CRL)-224/2023

Preventive detention requires compelling reasons, especially when the individual is already in custody; mere apprehension of future misconduct is insufficient.

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Manoj Jain, JJ
SHAHID KHAN @ CHOTE PRADHAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(CRL)-224/2023