IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 08.05.2025 Pronounced on: 30.05.2025 HCP No.254/2024 FARHAT BEGUUM ...Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Tuba Manzoor, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ANR. …Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act of 1988”), has, vide order No.DIVCOM-“K”/81/2024 dated 18.04.2024, ordered preventive detention of Farhat Begum @ Fancy (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), in order to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of the Act of 1988. 2) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the impugned detention order has been challenged by the petitioner contending that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner. It has been further urged that there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned 2 HCP No.254/2024 detention order as the detenue was already admitted to bail in the FIR, mention whereof has not been made in the grounds of detention but the said fact is not mentioned in the grounds of detention. 3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the detenue is an active member of large drug mafia who is relentlessly involved in drug trafficking not only in the local area but is involved in such illegal activities at the district level as well. It has been further contended that the detenue was supplying drugs to the gullible youth of the area thereby exposing them to different kinds of immoral, illegal and criminal tendencies. It has been submitted that the detenue has adopted the drug trafficking as his regular source of earning and he has been motivating and influencing the young minds towards drug consumption. It has been contended that the detenue was involved in case FIR No.72/2024 for offences under Section 8/21 NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Boniyar. It has been further contended that with a view to prevent the detenue from committing any offence under the provisions of the Act of 1988, his detention was ordered in terms of the impugned order. It is pleaded that whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has been furnished to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him. It has been averred that the impugned detention order has been passed after adhering to all legal, statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees. 3 HCP No.254/2024 4) Despite opportunities, the respondents have not produced the detention record. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust during the course of arguments, was on the ground that whole of the material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner. 6) The respondents have not brought on record anything that would suggest that the material relied upon by the detaining authority and transmitted to him by the concerned sponsoring agency has been furnished to the petitioner. Obviously, the petitioner has been hampered by non-supply of the material in making an effective representation against his detention. Thus, vital safeguards against arbitrary use of law of preventive detention have been observed in breach by the respondents in this case rendering the impugned order of detention unsustainable in law. Furnishing of whole of the material is a necessary requirement for enabling the detenue to make an effective representation against the order of detention. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & ors (AIR 1999 SC 3051), Thahira Haris etc. etc. Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors (AIR 2009 SC 2184) and Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti alias Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Kandar Ahmad Wagher alias Iqbal alias Gulam Vs. State of Gujarat and others”, (1982) 3 SCC 440. 4 HCP No.254/2024 7) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided he is not required in connection with any other case. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 30.05.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secretary” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 30.05.2025 03:49