Preventive detention requires clear, cogent grounds; lack thereof invalidates detention orders.

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-Neelam Devi, who is a 40 years old woman, has preferred this writ petition through her son- Sunil Kumar, thereby seeking quashment of a preventive detention order passed by the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (“PIT-NDPS Act, 1988” in short) as a result whereof the petitioner is suffering preventive detention custody being lodged in the District Jail, Udhampur meant to last for full period of one year.

04. The petitioner was reckoned to be a person allegedly involved in the activities falling within the mischief of PIT-NDPS Act, 1988 and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu by virtue of letter No.CRB/Dossier/2024/64/DPOJ dated 11.12.2024 submitted a dossier and other connected documents before the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu thereby seeking the preventive detention of the petitioner.

05. In his said dossier, the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Jammu came to provide the social background of the petitioner to be a widow aged 40 years being unable to carry out her ordinary pursuits and so getting involved and engaged in illegal drug activities with a view to earn money easily and with a passage of time turning into a notorious drug peddler running illegal trade of narcotics starting from Ganja and Chitta by procuring it at cheap prices and then selling the same at expensive prices by luring the young generation towards drug menace.

06. In this regard, the petitioner’s implication in FIR No. 190/2022 registered by the Police Station Bishnah for alleged commission of offences under section 8/21/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act, 1985” in short) came to be highlighted. The petitioner’s involvement in FIR No. 149/2024 again registered by the Police Station Bishnah for alleged commission of offence under section 8/20/27(A) of NDPS Act, 1985 was also cited. By reference to aforesaid two FIRs, the petitioner was said to have been booked and challaned before courts of law.

07. In addition to the implication and involvement of the petitioner in aforesaid criminal cases related to two FIRs, by reference to the purported inputs from the concerned Beat Incharge and Incharge DSB the petitioner was referred to be clandestinely carrying out activities of illicit trade of narcotic drugs in Bishnah and its adjoining areas. The petitioner is said to have been bailed out in aforesaid two criminal cases.

08. Proceeding at his end upon the said dossier, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came to formulate the grounds of detention by literally borrowing the text of the dossier highlighting the petitioner’s implication and involvement in a criminal cases related to FIR No. 190/2022 & FIR No. 149/2024 of the Police Station Bishnah and held that the petitioner’s reported alleged activities are falling within the mischief of PIT-NDPS Act, 1988 and, therefore, in order to prevent her from further committing any offence under the PIT-NDPS Act, 1988 and to secure the health and welfare of the public at large, the petitioner deserves to be subjected to preventive detention custody.

09. On the basis of the subjective satisfaction so drawn, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came to pass an Order No. PITNDPS 51 of 2024 dat