E-Paper
HC orders release of drugs case accused Karnal man from preventive detention
The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed preventive detention order of the state government of a Karnal man, accused in ganja seizure cases but detained for possessing heroin.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed preventive detention order of the state government of a Karnal man, accused in ganja seizure cases but detained for possessing heroin.
Preventive detention without trial in the country unless NDPS law is invoked in the case of hardened criminals to prevent large scale drugs trafficking.
The bench of justice Suvir Sehgal while observing that the authorities had proceeded while passing preventive detention order on the assumption that recovery effected from the petitioner is heroin, whereas there is no case registered against the petitioner on any such allegation.
“The material on the record is not germane to the past conduct of the petitioner and cannot form the foundation of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Detaining authority has mechanically adopted the recommendation given by police authority and as held in Jahanara Bibi’s case, Court cannot turn a blind eye to it. In the opinion of this Court, parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Ameena Begum’s case are not fulfilled and impugned orders cannot be sustained,” the bench said while quashing the preventive detention order passed by the state’s home department on May 5 and July 29 ordering his six months detention. The order was passed invoking provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988. The petitioner had approached high court on September 29 challenging the detention order and seeking ₹1 lakh compensation per month for the detention period.
The petitioner, Raju, who ran a grocery store had six criminal cases against him and as per plea the allegations were of possessing the non-commercial quantity, ganja. He had also secured bail in all the cases. However, preventive detention orders were passed by the state’s home department observing that he is continuously engaging in the illegal procurement of selling of heroin and that there is clear indication that he is not deterred from indulging in the illicit trafficking of drugs, when on bail.
State’s counsel in response to the petition had termed him a habitual drug trafficker but had admitted that he was wrongly described to be involved in the trade of heroin due to a clerical mistake.
The court said that the petitioner secured bail in all the six cases registered over a period of four years. Further, a bail cancellation application moved by authorities before a court was taken into account while passing the detention order. But police did not apprise superior authorities about the fact that the application was dismissed by the court. “It seems that all the relevant facts were not placed before the detaining authority,” the court said, adding that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is mandatory before it exercises the power under the detention laws.
The court observed that in reaching at requisite satisfaction, detaining authority has to apply its mind to all the relevant circumstances and material facts, which are of “rational probative value”. “Supreme Court has made it clear that the satisfaction has to be arrived at bearing in mind the existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of a person and imperative need to detain him and detention should not be based on material, which is stale,” the court said adding that in the case in hand detaining authority proceeded on the assumption that recovery effected from the petitioner was heroin.
Further, application for cancellation of bail filed by the prosecution has also been dismissed, which was not in the knowledge of the detaining authority.
The court has now quashed the detention order and gave liberty to the petitioner to file a suit for damages against the authorities.
