Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act Valid Even in Custody if Likelihood of Bail and Future Offenses Established: Delhi High Court

```markdown

Delhi High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act for Habitual Drug Offender

New Delhi, March 12, 2025 – The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a preventive detention order issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta , ruled that preventive detention is valid even when an individual is already in judicial custody, provided there is a legitimate apprehension of their release on bail and a likelihood of them engaging in further prejudicial activities.

Case Overview: Monu @ Sandeep v. Union of India

The case arose from a petition filed by Monu @ Sandeep , seeking to quash a detention order dated February 22, 2024, issued under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The order, issued by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, directed Monu 's detention based on his involvement in multiple cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Petitioner's Arguments: Detention Unjustified and Unlawful

Represented by Mr. Sunil Kumar Mehta and Mr. Kundan Kumar, the petitioner argued that the detention order was illegal and unwarranted on several grounds:

• Stale Grounds: One of the FIRs (FIR No. 111/2003) was from 2003, making it a stale ground for detention.
• Custody: The petitioner was already in judicial custody since February 2022 in connection with FIR No. 14/2022. Preventive detention cannot be used when a person is already incarcerated.
• No Likelihood of Release: Bail applications had been repeatedly dismissed, indicating no imminent release.
• Procedural Violations: Grounds of detention and relied-upon documents were provided in English without proof of explanation in Hindi, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
• Delayed Detention: The detention order was issued two years after custody, lacking a proximate link to future threats.
• Representation Unconsidered: A representation against the detention order was allegedly not considered, denying effective contestation.

Respondents' Submissions: Habitual Offender and Public Safety Threat

Representing the Union of India, Mr. Amit Tiwari argued for the validity of the detention order, emphasizing:

• History of Drug Trafficking: The petitioner was involved in three NDPS cases and approximately 109 criminal cases since 1997, demonstrating a pattern of illicit drug activities.
• Risk of Re-offending: Past criminal records and continuous bail applications indicated a high propensity to commit further offenses if released.
• Due Process Followed: Grounds for detention were translated into Hindi and explained to the petitioner. The detention order was issued after careful consideration of all facts.
• Public Interest: The petitioner's activities posed a serious threat to society's health and welfare, justifying preventive action.

Court's Analysis: Upholding Preventive Detention in Custody

The High Court meticulously analyzed the submissions and relevant legal precedents. The court referenced key Supreme Court judgments to affirm the principles governing preventive detention:

• Union of India V Ankit Ashok Jalan: Reiterated that detention orders can be valid even for those in custody, provided the detaining authority is aware of the custody and has sufficient grounds to necessitate detention, particularly the possibility of release and subsequent prejudicial activities.
• Taimoor Khan V Union of India & Anr.: Emphasized that apprehension of release and re-offending must be based on "cogent and tangible material," not mere apprehension.
• G. Reddeiah v. Govt. of A. P.: Stressed that preventive detention aims to prevent, not punish, and highlighted conditions for valid detention orders for those already in custody, including awareness of custody, real possibility of bail, and likelihood of re-engaging in prejudicial activities.
• Haradhan Saha V The State of West Bengal &Ors.: Established principles that preventive detention is a precautionary measure based on "reasonable prognosis of future behaviour based on past conduct."

The court highlighted the detention order's detailed examination of FIRs, particularly FIR No. 14/2022 involving a commercial quantity of narcotics and repeated bail application dismissals. The judgment underscored that the detaining authority was aware of the petitioner's custody and reasonably apprehended his release on bail.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment:

> "From Union of India V. Ankit Ashok Jalan (Supra), it is clear that even when a person is in judicial custody, he can be directed to be detained, supplementing further that there must be proper application of mind and the detaining authority must be subjectively satisfied that there is a reason to believe that the detenu would, in all probability, indulge in prejudicial activities, if released on bail."

> "Thus, the apprehension of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order is rightfully based on cogent grounds of the likelihood of the Petitioner securing bail and being released. In pursuance to such strong apprehension, the impugned detention order was passed, based on subjective satisfaction, to prevent the Petitioner from such release which could possibly lead to more criminal activities on his part."

> "From a perusal of the impugned detention order, it is evident that the detaining authority was well aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody and has applied for bail for several times for his release in FIR bearing Nos. 14/2022 and 369/2020. It is also evident from the grounds as stated in the impugned detention order that there was enough material on record necessitating the preventive detention of the detenu."

Decision and Implications

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court concluded that the detention order was legally sound. The court found no infirmity in the detaining authority's reasoning or procedure, stating that "the detaining authority has fully complied with the requisite procedure and statutory safeguards."

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the detention order against Monu @ Sandeep remains in effect, underscoring the judiciary's stance on preventive detention as a necessary tool to combat habitual offenders involved in serious crimes like drug trafficking, even while they are incarcerated, if a genuine risk of release and recidivism exists. ```