PITNDPS Act| Non-Mentioning Of Bail Order In Detention Order Renders It Illegal: Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh HC

The Bench quashed the detention order against the petitioner in terms of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (PITNDPS) observing that the detaining authority was required to disclose all the relevant material in the detention order as it reflects the “subjective satisfaction” of the detaining authority while passing the detention order.

A Single Bench of Justice Puneet Gupta observed, “The argument of learned counsel for respondents that the non-mentioning of bail in the detention order is not fatal cannot be accepted. The Registration of FIR against the petitioner is the core ground for passing the detention order, therefore, the non-mentioning of the same in the detention order renders the detention order illegal.”

Advocate Usman Gani represented the petitioner, while Sr. AAG Mohsin Qadiri appeared for the respondents.

The Court noted, “The preventive detention being not a criminal proceedings and is only with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in illegal activities, the safeguards provided in the Act have to be scrupulously followed by the authorities and any violation of the same will be illegality committed by the concerned authorities.”

The petitioner challenged the detention order issued by the Divisional Commissioner against him on the grounds that the detention order did not mention the bail granted to the petitioner by the trial court in FIR registered under Sections 8, 20-29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (NDPS).

The counter affidavit filed by the authorities submitted that the petitioner was influencing the “immature minds of young generation and making them habitual and addict.”

The High Court stated that non-mention of the bail granted to the petitioner in the detention order, despite its mention in the dossier, rendered the detention order as illegal.

“No doubt, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is not to be scrutinized by this court as a court of appeal but at the same time the court is not completely debarred from prima facie looking into the satisfaction of the detaining authority in the proceedings like the present one. The detention order is required to be quashed on the aforesaid ground of non-mention of bail order.” the Court remarked.

The Bench also pointed out that there was so much delay in the consideration and disposal of the petitioner’s representation, which was received on 17.07.2023 and rejected only on 21.09.2023. “The representation has to be considered and decided by the authorities with all promptitudes and in case there is a delay in disposal of the representation, the reasons must come forthwith from the concerned authorities,” the Court added.

Consequently, the impugned detention order was quashed by the Court and the petitioner was subsequently released from custody.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Manzoor Ahmad Bhat v. U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Usman Gani

Respondents: Sr. AAG Mohsin Qadiri and Advocate Nadiya Abdullah

Click here to read/download the Judgment