IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No.31 of 2025 Decided on : 26.02.2026 Ankush Thakur ...Petitioner Versus H The State of HP and Others …Respondents.

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : rMr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate.

For the respondent(s) u: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

CBy way of the present petition, challenge has been laid to the order of detention passed on 06.12.2025 (Annexure-P-1), whereby on account of two FIRs under the NDPS Act, the respondents had directed that detention be imade of the petitioner for a period of three months, while exercising power under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS), 1988.

2. The reason made by the detaining authority was on the basis of the proposal given by the Superintendent of

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

Police, Solan, HP on 19.11.2025/04.12.2025 (AnnexureR1/2). Resultantly the detaining authority apparently accepted the proposal and passed the order by coming to the conclusion that two FIRs were lodged against the petitioner and the petitioner was a habitual offender and a notorious drug dealer and has refused to change his ways and preventive detention would have serious impact in reducing the drug consumption and drug related crimes.

3. As per thue source report and the proposal, he was still stated to be actively involved in trafficking of NDPS substance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to hour notice that the FIR in question was lodged way back and after the second FIR also in which his involvement was there, heroin/chitta was of intermediate quantity and there was a time gap of over one and half year in passing the detention order, as the second FIR was lodged on 02.03.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the detaining authority, as such, did not apply its mind to this fact and only repeated the proposal of the Superintendent of Police and on that ground the detention order is liable to be quashed. The details of the FIR against the petitioner read as under:-

6. The proposarl and source report of the Superintendent of Police would go on to show that the petitioner was still indulging in the activities of drug trafficking and theCre was a live link. However, the record is to the contrary, as apparently no FIR was lodged after March, 2024, till the order of the detention was passed on 06.12.2025, which was substantially a long period.

i7. In such circumstances, reliance has been placed on Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Vs. State of Nagaland and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 502, and the same is well justified. The relevant portion regarding the aspect of the application of mind by the detaining authority has been highlighted in the said judgment. The relevant paragraphs read as under:-

“16. Lastly, the material placed on record reflects that the detaining authority, viz., the Sp.ecial Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, did not even make separate grounds of detention but merely acted upon the proposals for detention forwarded to her by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland. The cryptic orders of detention passed by her on 30.05.2024 merely recorded that she was satisfied, on careful examination of such proposals and other supporting docum ents, that sufficient grounds were made out for the detention of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang. This is not in keeping with the statutory scheme, inasm