The suppression of material facts, such as failed attempts to cancel bail, from the detention dossier vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, rendering the preventive detention order illegal and liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT

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

02. Perused the writ pleadings.

03. The detention record produced also scanned thoroughly.

04. The petitioner came forward with the present writ petition filed on 03.11.2025, being aggrieved of his preventive detention custody inflicted upon him by an order No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short “PIT NDPS Act, 1988”) read with SRO 247 dated 27.07.1988 upon finding the petitioner’s alleged reported activities to be falling within the mischief of section 3 of PIT NDPS Act, 1988.

05. The petitioner came to be taken into custody on 27.09.2025 and confined to the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.

06. The case for preventive detention of the petitioner was put into process by the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur, who vide his letter No. Conf./PITNDPS/536-39 dated 15.07.2025 submitted a dossier of alleged state of activities of the petitioner reckoning which the petitioner was held to be a case for suffering preventive detention under PIT NDPS Act, 1988.

07. In his dossier, the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur exhibited the petitioner’s criminal and bad antecedents by reference to FIR No. 188/2024 under section 8/21/22 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of the Police Station Chenani followed by four Daily-Diary Entries made from 05.02.2025 to 19.06.2025 all by the Police Station Chenani.

08. In the dossier, the fact of release of the petitioner on bail by reference to FIR No. 188/2024 also came to be mentioned.

09. Acting on said dossier, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu felt persuaded that a case was made out to order the preventive detention of the petitioner and, thus, formulated the grounds of detention to hold that on the basis of the reported state of activities of the petitioner, he deserves to suffer preventive detention and, accordingly, passed the detention order No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025.

10. The petitioner has come assailing the detention on number of grounds as set out in para 16 (a) to (l).

11. Highlight ground of challenge is the fact that before service of the dossier from the end of the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur to the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Udhampur by virtue of communication No. Conf./PITNDPS/536-39 dated 15.07.2025, the Prosecution had solicited rejection of the petitioner’s bail granted in FIR No. 188/2024 by an application made on 03.02.2025 before the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge under NDPS Act), Udhampur which came to be rejected by virtue of an order dated 05.04.2025.

12. In the entire dossier, there is not even a whisper of any such exercise undertaken for seeking cancellation of the bail in favour of the petitioner. Thus, when by the time of passing of order dated 05.04.2025, the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur was yet to frame his dossier against the petitioner but still omitted to bear mention of such an important aspect related to suffering rejection of cancellation of bail qua the accused, then obviously the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu was not fully fed with the facts.

13. While on one hand cancellation of bail did not succeed but on other hand the petitioner came to be subjected to preventive detention custody is a situation which is antithetical to each other.

14. In fact, from the perusal of detention record produced for the inspection of this Court, this Co