##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT

SRINAGAR

Reserved on: 16.12.2025

Pronounced on:29 .12.2025

Uploaded on: 29.12.2025

Whether the operative part

or full judgment is

pronounced: Full

HCP No.23/2025

FAYAZ AHMAD LONE ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT

Through: - Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate.

Vs.

U T OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the

Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred as to “the Act of 1988”), has, vide

order No.DIVCOM-“K”/05/2025 dated 21.01.2025, ordered

preventive detention of Fayaz Ahmad Lone (the detenue),

in order to prevent him from committing any of the acts

within the meaning of the Act of 1988.

2) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the

impugned detention order has been challenged by the

HCP No.23/2025 Page 1 of 8

petitioner contending that the allegations levelled in the

grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and

the same have been fabricated by the police in order to

justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been

contended that the impugned detention order has been

passed without application of mind as the grounds of

detention are vague, non-existent and stale on the basis of

which no prudent man can make a representation against

such allegations. It has been further contended that the

procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the

instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not

been provided to the petitioner. It has been further urged

that there has been non-application of mind on the part of

detaining authority while passing the impugned detention

order.

3) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing

their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the

impugned order of detention is based on a reasonable

prediction of future behaviour, considering the detenu’s

past conduct. It has been contended that the detenue

developed contacts with drug peddlers operative in Tehsil

Zainapora District Shopian and started selling/dealing in

drugs among the youth of the area which have adverse

impact on the younger generation. It has also been

HCP No.23/2025 Page 2 of 8

contended that the detenue was exposing the young and

gullible minds including school going children to the

heinous world of drugs and making them habitual drug

addicts. It has been contended that the detenue is an active

member of drug mafia, who is relentlessly involved in the

drug trafficking in his area and outside State. It has been

contended that the detenue was involved in case FIR

No.09/2023 for offences under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act

registered with Police Station Behigam and FIR No.62/2023

for offence under Section 8/21 of Police Station, Zainapora.

It has been further contended that with a view to prevent

the detenue from committing any offence under the

provisions of the Act of 1988, his detention was ordered in

terms of the impugned order. It is pleaded that whole of the

material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has

been furnished to the detenue and the same was read over

and explained to him. It has been averred that the

impugned detention order has been passed after adhering

to all legal, statutory requirements and constitutional

guarantees.

4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused

record of the case.

5) Although a number of grounds have been urged by the

petitioner in his petition for assailing the impugned order of

HCP No.23/2025 Page 3 of 8

detention, yet, during the course of arguments, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner laid much emphasis on

the following grounds

(I) That the detenue was not furnished the whole of

the material to enable him to make an effective

representation against his detention.

(II) That the allegations made in the grounds of

detention against the petitioner are vague which

a