‘There can’t be parity in detention matters’
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 5: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that detention order under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPSA) can be passed on a solitary incident.
The bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal was dealing with a petition challenging preventive detention order dated 19th March, 2024 passed by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir against Mohammad Tajamul Masoodi of Pampore. The specific case of the detenue was that the order of detention doesn’t attribute any activity post his release on bail by the court on January 15, 2024 and therefore the preventive detention was unwarranted, unjustified and has been passed without application of mind.
After hearing Advocate S R Hussain for the petitioner and Government Advocate Jehangir Ahmad Dar for the respondents, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “the present case relates to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs. The grounds of the detention indicate the alleged involvement of the detenue in the trafficking of 66.58 kg of brown sugar. The grounds for detention emphasize the recurring nature of these offenses, which pose a significant threat to public health and societal stability”.
“A review of the detention record reveals that the detenue has been implicated in multiple criminal cases, specifically FIR No. 54/2017 under NDPS Act and FIR No. 78/2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 109 RPC. These cases detail the detenue’s involvement in serious drug-related offenses. Given the habitual nature of his drug peddling activities, the court finds that the detenue’s conscious participation in the illegal trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances constitutes a significant threat to public health and welfare”, High Court said.
The High Court further observed, “a perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the alleged activities of the petitioner have been specifically mentioned therein. In the grounds of detention, reference has been made to the post bail violations and the activities of the detenue after his release are highly objectionable as reportedly he along with his associates have started indulging in illegal drug trafficking”.
“Viewing the seriousness of the matter and its overall impact upon the people, particularly on younger generation, after the release of the detenue, he was put under proper surveillance by the security agencies and during his release detenue had reportedly visited Uri area of Baramulla which is suggestive of the fact that the detenue is trying to revive his illegal activities which poses a serious threat to the security of the state. And one solitary incident of such a huge quantity of brown sugar is enough to detain someone like the detenue”, High Court said.
The record reveals that the detenue has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts to the extent that he has filed a representation before the respondents on 12-04-2024 and same was disposed of on 09-09-2024. Following this process and considering all relevant facts, the Advisory Board concluded that sufficient cause existed for the detenue’s continued detention, High Court said, adding subsequently, the Government confirmed his detention for a period of one year starting from the date of the execution of detention order—30-03-2024 till 29-03-2025.
Pointing towards the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, High Court said, “so far as the parity in detention matter is concerned there are no hard and fast rules regarding grant or refusal of relief as each case has to be considered on its own merits and record”, adding “there cannot be any parity with respect to the detention matters as each case has to be evaluated on its own merit based on its individual circumstances and record”.
The High Court further said, “the law of preventive detention is designed primarily to prevent future harm rather than to punish past actions. Unlike criminal proceedings, where specific offenses must be proven, preventive detention relies on suspicion and reasonable belief that an individual may pose a threat. This means that the authorities do not need to establish guilt for a prior crime; instead, the focus is on preventing potential actions that could endanger public safety”.
“Since normal law has not been sufficient to stop drug trafficker from indulging in such activities, his detention order was passed and considering the circumstances, the detention order made by the detaining authority stands upheld”, High Court said while dismissing the petition.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
