Preventive detention orders must comply with legal procedures, and any failure in this regard can lead to annulment.

JUDGMENT

01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

02. Perused the writ pleadings and the documents therewith. Also perused the detention record produced from the end of the respondents.

03. The petitioner- Asha Bibi, who is a woman, came to suffer preventive detention under the effects of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (“PIT-NDPS Act, 1988” in short) which has resulted in her confinement in the District Jail, Jammu and has come forward with the present writ petition filed through her husband- Mohd Sadiq thereby seeking a writ of habeas corpus to regain the lost personal liberty by quashment of the preventive detention order passed in the case.

04. The respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua by virtue of a letter No. Pros/PIT- NDPS/53428-34/DPO dated 30.11.2024, served a dossier to the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu thereby highlighting the alleged acts of omission or commission on the part of the petitioner found to be serious enough warranting her preventive detention in order to prevent her from carrying on with mischief falling within the scope of PIT-NDPS Act, 1988.

05. In the dossier, it came to be mentioned by the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua that the petitioner is a notorious criminal/ drug peddler/ habitual smuggler engaged in the sale and purchase of narcotics substances thereby spreading the evil of drug addiction in the Society. It also came to be alleged in the said dossier that the petitioner has been found involved in sale/ purchase/possession of the narcotic drugs time and again and infact has adopted the peddling of narcotic drugs as a profession thereby posing a serious threat to the lives of young generation of the Country and also to the economy of the State.

06. In this regard, the antecedents of the petitioner in terms of her implication in the criminal cases related to FIR No. 294/2023 and FIR No. 104/2024, both registered by the Police Station Rajbagh, for alleged commission of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act, 1985” in short) came to be highlighted.

07. With respect to FIR No. 294/2023 involving alleged possession of 8.45 grams of Heroine, the case was referred to be still pending investigation but whereas with respect to FIR No. 104/2024 involving alleged possession of 3.10 grams of Heroine, the case was said to have been investigated and presented as a Final Police Report/Challan before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hiranagar.

08. In addition to the petitioner’s alleged involvement by reference to the said two FIRs, the dossier came to mention about DDR No. 24 dated 30.10.2024, DDR No. 25 dated 28.10.2024, DDR No. 16 dated 07.11.2024 & DDR No. 12 dated 08.11.2024, thereby purportedly meaning to say that there are repeated adverse inputs related to the alleged activities of the petitioner in narcotic deals.

09. The respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came to formulate the grounds of detention on the basis of the dossier submitted to him by the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Kathua for the purpose of drawing a subjective satisfaction as to whether there is a case made out for subjecting the petitioner to suffer preventive detention under PIT-NDPS Act, 1988.

10. The respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came to make a repetition of the dossier by referring to the alleged implication of the petitioner in FIR No. 294/2023 & FIR No. 104/2024 and adverse reports in terms of DDR No. 24 dated 30.10.2024, DDR No. 25 dated 28.10.2024, DDR No. 16 dated 07.11.2024 & DDR No. 12 dated 08.11.2024, all generated at