HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 Reserved on:- 07.08.2025 Pronounced on:- 19.08.2025 Parveen Akhter Age 24 years W/O Haroon Rashid R/O Ward No.2, Tehsil & District Rajouri at present lodged in District Jail, Jammu …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Prince Khanna, Advocate. Vs. 1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri. 4. The Superintendent District Jail, Jammu. .…. Respondents Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE JUDGMENT 01. Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order No. PITNDPS-41 of 2024 dated 12.11.2024 (impugned order), passed by respondent No.2- Divisional Commissioner, Jammu (“the detaining authority”), in exercise of powers under Section 3 the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 (PIT NDPS Act) read with SRO 247 of Serial No. 100 2 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 1998 dated 27.07.1998, whereby, the petitioner, namely, Parveen Akhter W/O Haroon Rashid R/O W.No.2 Rajouri Tehsil and District Rajouri (‘the detenue’) has been detained in order to prevent her from acting in any manner prejudicial to the safety/security of the public at large. 02. The impugned detention order has been challenged through the medium of the instant petition, being in breach of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India read with provisions of PIT NDPS Act. It has also been assailed on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind, there being no compelling reason as the detenue was facing trial in all the cases, though being admitted to bail, to invoke preventive detention; that the impugned order was based on stale cases, registered against detenue in the years 2019 to 2024; that in all the cases, small quantities of contraband was alleged to have been recovered and she was not a notorious criminal as alleged; that impugned order is not reasoned, without holding subjective satisfaction. 03. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit, reasoning that the detenue was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, as had she been let free there would have been every likelihood of her re- indulging in criminal activities; that the detenue is involved in numerous criminal activities of drug peddling as a habitual smuggler, engaged in the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which poses a serious threat to the lives of young generation of the country and even to the economy of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It is further submitted that the repeated and continuous involvement of the detenue, in the 3 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 illicit trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances and her disrespectful attitude towards the substantive law, it has become inevitable to detain her preventively. 04. Mr. Prince Khanna, learned counsel for the detenue, while being heard, making reference to the grounds of detention, would argue that on a cursory look on the same it is manifest that same are vague, besides replica of the dossier. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority, on the basis of dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri without application of mind; and without evaluating the allegations made against the detenue in the said dossier, proceeded to pass impugned detention order, whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged at District Jail, Jammu. It is further argued that there was delay of 34 days in execution of the detention order, which suggests that there was neither any urgency nor any justification for preventive detention. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority has not mentioned in the detention order that the detenue has right to make representation against the order of detention and she was supplied the copies of the documents/FIRs and material relied upon by the Detaining Authority which were neither legible nor readable documents, so the detenue was prevented from making effective and meaningful representation against the detention order to the government, as such, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 05. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG for the respondents, ex adverso, submits that the record reveals that there is no vagueness in the grounds of detention. All the procedural safeguards prescribed under Act and the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been 4 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 followed in the instant case. The detenue has been furnished all the material, as was required, and was also made aware in the language understandable to the detenue, of her right to make representation to the detaining authority as well as government, against her detention. Learned Sr. AAG further submits that though the detenue has been granted bail in three cases registered against her by the competent court of law, however, based on DDR No.11 dated 08.09.2024 as well as the Dossier dated 02.11.2024 issued by the SSP, the detention order has been passed by respondent No.2. She further submits that the delay of 34 days in execution of warrant is due to procedural movement of file from one office to another. 06. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length, considered their submissions and perused the detention record. 07. The right of personal liberty is most precious right guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person. A person is not to be deprived of his/her personal liberty except in accordance with procedures established under law and the procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his/her personal liberty because of the criminal charge framed against him/her, has an opportunity to defend himself/herself and to be acquitted of the charges in case the prosecution fails to bring home his/her guilt. Where such a person is convicted of the offence, 5 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 he/she still has the satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his/her defence. 08. Nevertheless, framers of the Constitution have, by incorporating Article 22 (5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person having been held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. The object is to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case it would be dangerous for the people at large, to wait and watch as, by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous designs, would execute his/her plans, exposing the general public to risk and cause colossal damage to life and property. It is, therefore, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent the person bent upon perpetrating mischief from translating his/her ideas into action. Article 22(5) Constitution of India therefore leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 09. The detention record, as produced, reveals that the detenue was involved in following cases registered at Police Stations Rajouri and Bahu Fort, Jammu vide:- (i) FIR No.567/2019; U/S 8/21/22 NDPS Act, PS Rajouri; (ii) FIR No. 36/2022; U/S 8(a)/21/29 NDPS Act, PS Rajouri. (iii) FIR No. 69/2024; U/S 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act PS Bahu Fort, Jammu. Besides, above mentioned case FIRs, one DDR No.11 dated 08.09.2024 recorded at Police Station Rajouri against the detenue, has also been based to pass the impugned order. Involvement of the detenue in the 6 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 aforementioned cases appears to have heavily weighed with by the detaining authority while passing detention order. Even in aforementioned three FIRs, the charge sheets are presented before the court of competent Court of law, however, bail was granted to the detenue by the court(s) in all the cases. 10. Perusal of detention record reveals that detenue at the time of execution of detention i.e., on 16.12.2024 was provided copy of the detention order along with grounds of detention, dossier and other relevant material. The detenue, as record would reveal, was also informed as regards making of representation against the detention order if she so desired, both to detaining authority and Government. 11. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order. The detaining authority has narrated facts and figures that persuaded it, to exercise its powers under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, and record subjective satisfaction that detenue was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to prevent her from committing any of the acts within the meaning of illicit traffic. The detaining authority has informed detenue that she is an accused in three cases, involving illegal trafficking of narcotic substances, which poses serious and great threat to the society particularly/especially young generation. So viewed, the detenue is not to be heard saying that any of her Constitutional and Statutory rights have been violated while detention order in question was served on her and thereafter executed. 7 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 12. The contention that the impugned order is vitiated as it was executed after a period of one month, is not tenable as the detenue is resident of Rajouri district, whereas impugned order was passed by the detaining authority-Divisional Commissioner as Secretary to Government in Jammu and time would have been taken in communicating the order to the executing authorities. Otherwise also, the order impugned had not been passed to prevent the detenue from activities prejudicial to the security of UT of J&K, so as to attract its urgent execution. 13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of “Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B” [(1975) 3 SCC 198], has succinctly pointed out difference between preventive and punitive detention in the following words: "The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The, basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. A criminal conviction on the other hand is for an act already done which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one, case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the 8 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in section 3 of the Act to prevent." 14. The conceptual framework of preventive detention has been reiterated in “Khudiram Das v. State of W.B”, [(1975) 2 SCR 832], as under: "The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure. It does not partake in any manner of the nature of punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent mischief to the community. Since every preventive measure is based on the principle that a person should be prevented from doing something which, if left free and unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof." 15. In “Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India”, [(2005) 8 SCC 276], the Court observed: "It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive action, avowed object of which being to prevent the anti- social and subversive elements from imperilling the welfare of the country or the security of the nation or from disturbing the public tranquillity or from indulging in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic 9 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc. Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The authorities on the subject have consistently taken the view that preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it, and to prevent him from doing so." 16. The instant case relates to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The drug problem is a serious threat to public health, economy and growth of humanity. Our global community is facing serious consequences of drug abuse and it undermines the socio-economic and political stability and sustainable development. Besides, it also distorts the health and fabric of the society and it is considered to be the originator for petty offences as well as heinous crimes like smuggling of arms & ammunition and money laundering. The involvement of various terrorist groups and syndicates in drug trafficking leads to threat to the national security and sovereignty of States by the way of Narco-terrorism. The drug trafficking and abuse has continued its significant toll on valuable human lives and productive years of many persons around the globe. With the growth and development of world economy, drug traffickers are also seamlessly trafficking various type of drugs from one corner to other ensuring the availability of the contrabands for vulnerable segment of the society who fall into the trap of drug peddlers and traffickers. Due to India's close proximity with major opium growing areas of the region, India is facing serious menace 10 HCP No. 52/2025 CM No. 2176/2025 of drug trafficking and as a spill-over effect, drug abuse especially among the youth, is a matter of concern for us. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clearly disclosed that it is not the number of acts that are to be determined for detention of an individual but it is impact of the acts which is material and determinative. In the instant case the acts of detenue relates to drug trafficking, which has posed serious threat, apart from health and welfare of the people, to youth, most particularly unemployed youth, to indulge in such acts, ramifications thereof would be disastrously irreversible and unimaginable. Her repeated acts of illicit trafficking in narcotics and psychotropic substances, smuggling the same in Rajouri and Jammu, are sufficient which had weighed with the detaining authority to draw its subjective satisfaction to pass the impugned detention order. The detenue has not been able to convincingly point out violation of any statutory or constitutional provisions. 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is found to be devoid of any merit and substance and is liable to be rejected. The petition is, thus, dismissed and the impugned order relating to preventive detention of the petitioner is upheld. No order to costs. 19. Detention record, as produced, be returned to learned Sr. AAG. (M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU 19.08.2025 Surinder Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No Surinder Kumar 2025.08.19 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document JAMMU