In a recent judgment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has quashed a preventive detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti, highlights the crucial aspects of preventive detention and its permissible limits under law.
The judgment scrutinized the preventive detention order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, against an individual who was accused of being involved in narcotic drug trafficking. The order was based on a dossier by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Baramulla, which generalized the accused as part of illegal narcotics trade. The detainee had been held at Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.
The court found that the preventive detention was used as a substitute for punitive detention, which is only permissible after a criminal trial and conviction. Furthermore, the court noted the lack of disclosure regarding the detainee’s earlier bail in the case related to FIR no. 22/2023. The absence of information about the petitioner’s bail status and the failure to challenge this bail in a higher court were crucial factors leading to the decision.
The judgment underscores the importance of complete and truthful disclosure of facts in cases of preventive detention and reiterates the constitutional safeguard against arbitrary detention. The court emphasized that preventive detention cannot be used as an alternative to punitive detention, especially when a person is already under the judicial process for the related crime.
This ruling serves as a significant reminder to law enforcement agencies about the boundaries of preventive detention under the Act and upholds the principles of justice and personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution.
Case Details
| Case Title | Judge | Lawyer(s) | Date of Order |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul Qayoom Khan v. Union Territory of J&K and Others | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rahul Bharti | Mr. N.H. Shah (Sr. Advocate for Petitioner), Mr. Sajad Ashraf (GA for Respondent) | 20.12.2023 |
Key Legal Points and Findings
- Use of Preventive Detention: Preventive detention cannot replace punitive detention and is subject to strict legal scrutiny.
- Disclosure of Facts: Complete and truthful disclosure is essential in preventive detention cases.
- Constitutional Safeguards: Upholding the constitutionally guaranteed right to personal liberty against arbitrary detention.
- Bail Status Consideration: Overlooking the petitioner’s bail status in related criminal proceedings influenced the court’s decision.
Timeline of Events in the Case
- 15.06.2023: Dossier submitted by SSP, Baramulla.
- 04.07.2023: Detention order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.
- 22.05.2023: Bail granted to petitioner in related FIR.
- 10.11.2023: Case reserved for judgment.
- 20.12.2023: High Court quashes the detention order and restores petitioner’s liberty.
