JUDGMENT

1. Impugned in the instant petition, having been filed in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order of detention bearing No. PITNDPS 20 of 2025 dated 16.04.2025, passed by respondent No.2i.ethe Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, (hereinafter referred to as the Detaining Authority for short) while invoking his powers U/s (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PITNDPS Act for short) r/w SRO-247 dated 27.07.1988, whereby the petitioner/detenu was directed to be detained and lodged in District Jail Udhampur, for a period to be specified by the Government with a view to prevent him from engaging in Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

2. The petitioner–detenu, through his wife Shagun Chandel, aged about 23 years, has sought the quashment of the impugned detention order dated 16.04.2025 by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, inter alia, on the grounds that same is violative of his guarantees under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. That firstly, there was no legal justification for his detention on the mere allegations of his involvement in certain FIRs in which petitioner-detenu stands already enlarged on bail and secondly, the copies of the documents forming the basis of the impugned detention order were neither furnished nor explained to him in a language understandable by him, thereby depriving him of his right to make an effective and timely representation against his detention. That he was not informed by the detaining authority regarding his constitutional right to make a representation against his detention order. That actually the copies of order impugned and grounds of detention without the supporting documents came to be handed over to the petitioner-detenu by jail authorities after some days of his arrest and detention. That the impugned detention order was not confirmed by the Government as required under law within the prescribed period. That even his case was not referred to the Statutory Board competent to advise the Government regarding any prima facie ground being made out or not, for detention of the detenu. That the grounds of detention of the petitioner are stale and have no proximity with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned detention order. That the detaining authority has while merely acting upon the dossier of respondent No.3hurried to pass the impugned order without application of mind and without appreciating the fact that the petitioner/detenu had already been proceeded under ordinary criminal law in respect of his alleged accusation.That the detention of the petitioner on the basis of criminal cases which are already the subject matter of a pending trials amounts to subjecting him to double jeopardy.That the respondent No.2i.e the detaining authority has not chosen to produce the petitioner before the learned advisory board, as is envisaged under law. That the grounds of detention are the replica of the police dossier without any application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. That the petitioner being an illiterate person cannot be supposed to read and understand the contents of the impugned detention order as well as the grounds of detention being in English language that came to be furnished to him after some days of his detention and lodgement in the jail. That the petitioner was not furnished the whole material so that he would be able to file a representation to the Government.

3. The petition has been resisted by the respondents through the memo of objections on the grounds that same is not maintainable in view of the fact that detention of the petitioner stands ordered in terms of a valid and legal order issued by the learned detaining authority in exercise of his powers vested in it u/s 3 (1) of PITNDPS Act.

That the detention order has been passed by the competent authority upon due applica