HCP No.398/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 07.05.2025 Pronounced on: 30.05.2025 HCP No. 398/2024 ABDUL AHAD BHAT ...Petitioner(s) Through: -Mr. Sajad Ashraf, Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K & OTHERS …Respondent(s) Through: -Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. JUDGMENT 1) The petitioner has assailed the legality and veracity of detention order bearing No.DIVCOM-“K”/181/2024 dated 22.11.2024, issued by Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir (the detaining authority). In terms of the aforesaid order, Abdul Ahad Bhat S/o Mohd Sultan Bhat resident of Bonpora Batamaloo District Srinagar (for short "the detenue") has been placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”). 2) The petitioner has contended that the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention have no nexus with the detenue and that the same have been fabricated by the police in order to justify its illegal action of detaining the detenue. It has been contended that the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent on which no prudent man can make a HCP No.398/2024 representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been contended that the representation filed by the petitioner against his detention has not been considered by the respondents. 3) The respondents have resisted the petition by filing their reply affidavit, wherein they have contended that the detenue has transformed into a notorious illicit drug peddler and has become the principal dealer of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in District Srinagar. It has been contended that the detenue was exposing the young and gullible minds including school going children to the heinous world of drugs and making them habitual drug addicts. It has been contended that the detenue is an active member of drug mafia who are relentlessly involved in the drug trafficking in the District Srinagar. It has been contended that the detenue was involved in case FIR No.31/2024 for offence under section 8/20 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station Shaheed Gunj. 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. In order to lend support to the stand taken in HCP No.398/2024 the counter affidavit, the respondents have produced the detention record. 4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the 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 the impugned order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority in a mechanical manner without there being any material on record that would go on to suggest that the petitioner was indulging in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It has been contended that the allegations made against the petitioner are vague without any specific particulars, on the basis of which it was not possible for the petitioner to make a suitable and effective representation. 6) In the above context, if we have a look at the grounds of detention, it refers to an incident relating to FIR No.31/2024 for offences under Section 8/20 NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Shaheed Gunj. As per the allegations made in the said FIR, on 28.07.2024, the petitioner was found to be in possession of 190 grams of charas like substance. It also appears that the petitioner was bailed out in the said case. As per the grounds of detention, after having been bailed out, the petitioner indulged in similar activities which is based upon the report of the sponsoring agency. However, the grounds of detention are silent with regard to the particulars of the activities in which the petitioner is alleged HCP No.398/2024 to have indulged after grant of bail by the court of law. It is not mentioned in the grounds of detention as to on which date and at which place the petitioner was found to be indulging in illicit trade of drugs after having been bailed out by the competent court. 7) A perusal of the police dossier submitted by the sponsoring agency reveals that the said agency has relied upon the beat report dated 14.11.2024, a copy whereof is available in the detention record. A perusal of the same would reveal that there is nothing specific stated therein as regards the alleged activities of the petitioner. In fact, in the said beat report, it is stated that there is no other FIR registered against the petitioner in any of the police stations of the Kashmir Valley. The only allegation made in the beat report is that the petitioner has become a drug addict and this may persuade others to take to drug addiction. On the basis of such a beat report, no prudent person would come to a conclusion that the petitioner has indulged in illicit traffic of drugs. 8) I am conscious of the fact this Court cannot undertake a judicial review of the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority yet there has to be some material before the detaining authority for deriving subjective satisfaction with regard to imperative need of invoking stringent law of preventive detention against a person. Sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be gone into by this Court in these proceedings. Absence of material can certainly form basis for interfering with the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. In the present case, where there was absolutely no material before the HCP No.398/2024 detaining authority to frame an opinion that the petitioner was indulging in illicit traffic of drugs even after having been granted bail by the court of law. Thus, subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in the present case appears to be a mechanical exercise of power which cannot be sustained in law. 9) For the foregoing reason, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from preventive custody forthwith provided he is not required not required in connection with any other case. 10) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 30.05.2025 "Bhat Altaf-Secy" Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 30.05.2025 03:49