JUDGEMENT

6 01. Aggrieved of the order of detention bearing No. PITNDPS 09 of 2023 dated 19.04.2023 issued by the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred as “ the detaining authority ”) under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, “the PITNDPS Act), the petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing of the same on the following grounds:

WP(Crl.) No. 63/2023 (1) That the petitioner is an illiterate person and not well conversant with the language of the detention order, was not provided the translated version of the grounds of detention, thereby enabling the petitioner to make an effective representation against the order of detention, as such, order of detention is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(2) That impugned order of detention suffers from the vice of non-

application of mind.

(3) That there is no live and proximate link between the prejudicial activities alleged to have been committed by the detenue and the purpose of passing of the detention order, as old and stale incidents have been relied upon by the respondent No. 2 while issuing the order of detention.

02. The respondents have filed the counter-affidavit stating therein that the petitioner was continuously and repeatedly found to be involved in illicit trafficking of drugs from 2017 till date, which is evident from three FIRs registered against him under the NDPS Act. Charge-sheet in one of the cases has been filed, whereas the investigation is continuing in other two cases. It is also stated that the petitioner is continuously involved in criminal/NDPS cases from the year 2011 to 2023 and has not mended his ways despite having bailed out by the courts. The detention order along with grounds of detention and the relevant record (128 leaves) were provided to the petitioner by the Executing Officer and the Executing Officer had also explained the detenue the grounds of detention in the language he understands i.e Hindi/Dogri. It has WP(Crl.) No. 63/2023 been further stated that the petitioner was also informed about his right to make a representation before Government against the order of detention. It is also averred that the detention order passed by the respondent No. 2 has been confirmed by the respondent No. 1 after obtaining an opinion of the Advisory Board vide order dated 15.06.2023.

03. Mr. Navyug Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not provided to the petitioner, which incapacitated the petitioner to make an effective representation against his order of detention. He further argued that respondents have not followed the mandatory provisions of law while detaining the petitioner. Mr. Sethi has further submitted that as the petitioner was granted bail, so the respondents instead of detaining the petitioner ought to have challenged the same. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in WP(Crl) No. 87/2022, titled, Anoop Sharma through Bimla Devi vs. UT of J&K and ors . decided on 04.08.2023, WP(Crl.) No. 287/2023, titled, Burhaan Mushtaq vs. UT of J&K and ors. decided on 22.03.2024, WP(Crl.) No. 202/2022, titled, Muyeeb Shafi Ganie vs. UT of J&K and Anr ., decided on 31.01.2024 and Krishan Lal Alias Lundi vs. UT of J&K JKJ Online 80364.

04. Per contra, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that all the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were provided to the petitioner against proper receipt. He further submitted that the petitioner was detained under the PITNDPS Act after taking into consideration his continuous involvement in three FIRs as WP(Crl.) No. 63/2023 mentioned in the