1 2025:CGHC:14451-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 167 of 2025 1 - Gayasuddin S/o Late Shabbir Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Village/city - Bichpara Kawardha, Tahsil - Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, Prisoner Through - Next Friend Wife Sahena Begam W/o Gayasuddin, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bichpara Kawardha, Police Station - Kawardha,district Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner-Cum-Detaining Authority Under The Prevention Of Illicit Traffic In Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Durg Division, Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4 - Station House Officer Police Station - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/03/2025 2 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by Commissioner-Cum-Preventing Authority, Durg, Division Durg in Criminal Case No. 30/2024. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a representation with documents was submitted against the petitioner before the Commissioner, Durg, Division under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. It is alleged in the representation that, the present petitioner is habitually engaged in illegal trafficking of drugs injection in the vicinity by which the public tranquility effected and public at large are the sufferers. Certain antecedents of the same nature of offence are also there against him and actively engaged in selling of drugs injection. Considering the conduct and engagement in the illegal business of selling of drugs injection, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be detained in jail for his involvement in illegal trafficking of drugs injection. The petitioner has submitted his reply along with his affidavit and after hearing the parties, the Commissioner has passed the order on 28.02.2025 and sent the petitioner in detention for 06 months while exercising its power under Section 3 read with Section 11 of the Act of 1988, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is having 2 criminal antecedents of the offence under the NDPS Act, which was of the year 2022 and 2024. He would further submits that out of 2 offences of NDPS Act, one offence of Crime No. 257/2024 for the offence under Section 21 (C) of NDPS Act is decided vide judgment dated 26.10.2024 and the petitioner has been acquitted from that offence whereas in the other offence of Crime No. 856/2022 for the offfence under Section 8 and 12 of the NDPS Act the same is pending for consideration 3 before the learned trial Court. He would further submits that there is no other case after 2024 against the petitioner. The Commissioner, only on apprehension had passed the order that the petitioner is actively engaged in illegal trafficking of drugs injection. There is no concrete material available with them to believe that he actually involved in illegal trafficking of drugs injection. There is no sources of their satisfaction yet they have passed the order which adversely affects the rights of the petitioner, therefore, impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be released from jail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that the consideration of the Commissioner is based on substantive satisfaction that the petitioner is engaged in illegal trafficking of drugs injection which affecting the public at large in the vicinity as well as in the city. As per their own submission, one case is still pending against the petitioner relating to the offence of the year 2022. Despite that there is allegation that he engaged in similar nature of offence. Though no offence has been registered against the petitioner but it is preventive measure under which the petitioner has been detained in jail to prevent the petitioner from engaging in illicit trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances for which the impugned order has been passed which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and also the fact that the case under the NDPS Act against the petitioner with respect to the offence of the year 2022 is pending before the learned trial Court and there are information that he actively engaged in illegal trafficking of contraband drugs injection and to prevent the petitioner from engaging in illicit trafficking in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the Commissioner has passed the impugned order. It further transpires from para 4 and 4 5 of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 that proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order and to hold that the order passed by Commissioner is suffers from any perversity or illegality. 8. Consequently, we found no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.03.27 19:41:38 +0530