IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 04.06.2025 Pronounced on: 11.07.2025 HCP No.301/2024 NAZIR AHMAD GAGROO ...PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Sopori, Advocate. Vs. U T OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - Mr. Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, Assisting Counsel. CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in exercise of his 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”/153/2024 dated 22.07.2024, ordered preventive detention of Nazir Ahmad Gagroo @Nazira (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 impugned detention order has been passed in breach of the mandate of law as the detaining authority has not followed the P a g e | 2 constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It has been contended that the allegations levelled against the detenue are not based on any specific details. It has been contended that respondent No.2 has not applied his judicial mind while passing the impugned order. It has been further contended that that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the relevant provisions of the J&K Public Safety Act as the detention order has neither been approved in time nor reference made to the Advisory Board within the stipulated period of time. It has been also contended that the whole of the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the petitioner thereby disabling him from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. 3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the detenue has transformed into a notorious illicit drug peddler in Trikanjan Boniyar area of District Baramulla. It has been submitted that the detenue, an active member of a larger drug mafia, was continuously exposing the young and gullible minds including school going children into the heinous world of drugs and making them habitual addicts and that the activities of the petitioner have posed a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of the area. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him. That the grounds urged by the P a g e | 3 petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit and that all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. To substantiate their stand taken in the counter affidavit, the respondents have produced the detention record. 4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the detention record. 5) The first ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner for assailing the impugned order of detention is that the same has been passed without application of mind. In this regard a perusal of the grounds of detention would reveal that it has been clearly stated therein that the petitioner had indulged in illicit drug trafficking and was involved in FIR No.264/2023 for offences under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Baramulla. It has been recorded in the grounds of detention that the activity of the petitioner poses great threat to the health of the society, as such, there is imperative need of detaining him by resorting to the provisions contained in PIT NDPS Act. It has also been noted in the grounds of detention that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in the aforesaid FIR but thereafter, instead of refraining from indulging in drug trafficking, he has again started indulging in supply of narcotic drugs in Baramulla area. Thus, the detaining authority has been quite alive to the facts and the material that was produced before it and it is only after meticulous P a g e | 4 examination of the material that the impugned order of detention has been issued. The contention of the petitioner that there has been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is without any merit. 6) The second ground that has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detention order has been passed in violation of the provisions contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act and that the impugned order of detention has not been approved the Advisory Board. 7) As already noted, the impugned order has been passed by the detaining authority in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the PIT NDPS Act and not under the provisions of J&K Public Safety Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner is misconceived and, in fact, it reflects non-application of mind in drafting the petition. 8) It is also clear from the detention record that the impugned order of detention has been confirmed by the Government on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board rendered vide communication dated 29.08.2024. The assertion of the petitioner in this regard is, therefore, contrary to the record. 9) Next it has been argued that the petitioner could not make a purposeful representation because he has not been provided whole of the material, on the basis of which the grounds of detention have been formulated. In this regard a perusal of the detention record P a g e | 5 would reveal that the petitioner has been furnished 23 leaves comprising detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (05 leaves), copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related documents (13 leaves). The receipt bears signature of the petitioner. As per the execution report, the contents of the aforesaid documents have been read over and explained to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has been furnished whole of the material that has formed basis of the grounds of detention. The ground urged by the petitioner in this regard is not supported by the material available in the detention record. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit. 10) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. 11) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 11.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: YES/NO Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 11.07.2025 02:51