SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15705

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kalyan Rai Surana, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, JJ
Henkhohao Lotjem – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland – Respondent
W.P.(Crl.)/8/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pakinrichapbo
For the Respondents: Inaholi Wotsa

A preventive detention order issued against a person in judicial custody is vitiated if the detaining authority fails to record specific subjective satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the detainee being released on bail and their potential to engage in further prejudicial activities.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Illegal Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Section 3(1) - Constitution of India - Article 22(5) - Preventive detention - Challenge to detention order passed while petitioner was in judicial custody - Detaining authority must apply its mind to the likelihood of the petitioner being enlarged on bail - Failure to demonstrate cogent reasons for the subjective satisfaction that the detainee would continue prejudicial activities while in custody vitiates the detention order. (Paras 23-25)

(B) Preventive Detention - Principles regarding detenue already in custody - Referring to Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198 (Para 34), court observes that where a person is in jail, detention must be based on a clear finding that bail is likely and prejudicial activities will recur.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, while in judicial custody for offences under the NDPS Act, 1985, was served with a preventive detention order under the PITNDPS Act, 1988. The petitioner challenged this, alleging lack of communication regarding rights, delay in representation disposal, and lack of application of mind by the detaining authority regarding his custody status.

Findings of Court:
The court found that while procedural requirements like informing the petitioner of his right to a personal hearing were met, the state failed to justify the necessity of preventive detention for a person already in judicial custody without any real prospect of bail.

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order is valid when passed against a person already in judicial custody without considering the likelihood of release on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: If a person is in judicial custody, the detaining authority must explicitly record its satisfaction regarding the likelihood of the detainee being released on bail and their continued threat; failure to do so renders the detention order unsustainable.

Result: Petition allowed; detention order quashed.

Table of Content
1. basis for initiating preventive detention proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' arguments regarding procedural fairness and detention grounds. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. examination of official records and compliance with detention norms. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. detention of an individual in judicial custody requires subjective satisfaction regarding bail likelihood. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final outcome and order for release. (Para 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(CAV)

(K.R. Surana, J)

Heard Mr. Pakinrichapbo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi Wotsa, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents.

2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.11.2025, passed by the Addl. Director General of Police, Nagaland, passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [PITNDPS Act for brevity], thereby ordering detention of the petitioner for a period of three months. WP (Crl.) 8/2026.

3) On the basis of FIR dated 26.05.2025, lodged by an ASI of Police, Narcotic PS, PHQ, Kohima, Narcotic PS Case No. 8/2025 was registered under Section 21(c), 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985, read with Section 61 of the BNS, 2023. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested by MVCP Duty Party between Khuzama village and Viswema Village. While the petitioner was in judicial custody, a proposal dated 03.10.2026, for detention of the petitioner was communicated by the Addl. Director General of Police (L&O), Nagaland, to the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Home Department (Political Branch) (respondent no.2) and while the petitioner was still in judicial custody, he was detained vide order dated under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 by the authority of the said respondent no.2 for an initial period of three months with a view to prevent him from engaging in illicit traffic in NDPS. The said detention order was served on the petitioner on the same date, i.e. 17.11.2025 along with grounds of detention, information to the detainee in connection with his detention. The relevant part of the grounds of detention is extracted below:-

“1. You, Henkhohao Lotjem are involved in the illegal possession and transportation of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the instant case, 50 (Fifty) soap cases of suspected heroin weighing approx. 541 (Five hundred forty-one) gms have been seized from your possession.

2. That your preventive detention is necessary to disrupt the existing NDPS network on a larger scale and provide a relief to the state of Nagaland struggling with the menace of drug abuse/ addiction.

3. Further, investigation has also revealed that you are actively engaging and dealing in illegal Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances; possession, sale, transportation and concealment of such psychotropic substances thus, confirming to acts under section 2(e) of PITDPS Act 1988.

4. That, there has been a huge public outcry concerning traffic of illicit drugs which is causing problems of abuse and addiction of all age groups especially that of teenage school children. You are suspected to be directly or indirectly involved in the intra and inter-State network of smuggling and trafficking of illicit drugs whereby luring youngsters to addiction, resulting in them becoming peddlers/ carriers for easy earnings.

5. That, you are presently under judicial custody. On the basis of material placed before me, I am satisfied that you are likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities unless you are prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of preventive detention

6. That, if not detained you are likely to be released on bail and you will continue to be a threat to the peace and security of the state of Nagaland/ North Eastern and other States in the country and there is likelihood of you continuing in illicit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top