( 2026:HHC:20389 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No.26 of 2026 Decided on: 26.05.2026 Ankush Sharma ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The challenge in the present writ petition is to the detention order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner has been detained for a period of three months and kept in the Sub-Jail Bangarh, Distict Una, Himachal Pradesh under the PIT ND&PS Act, 1988 on account of the involvement in two FIR’s, of NDPS registered against him, the details of which are mentioned as under:- “i. FIR No.229/2019, dated 01.07.2019, Police Station Una, District Una, H.P., under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, wherein approximately 1.56 grams 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of heroin/chitta was allegdely recovered from his possession; ii. FIR No.238/2028 (as mentioned in order) dated 21.07.2025, Police Station, Una, District, Una, H.P., under Section 21 of th NDPS Act, wherein approximately 1.51 grams of heroin/chitta was allegdly recovered from his possession.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is non-application of mind, since it was on the basis of the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Police, District Una and the detention order was passed, whereby the right to make representation was given before the detaining authority instead of the authority passing the order, namely, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Himachal Pradesh. He has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 51, wherein it has been mentioned that it is violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, since it was the detaining authority passing the order who had to examine the representation and once the person being detained has not been informed his right to make the representation before the concerned authority, the said constitutional right is taken away. 3. It is also submitted that there was no live, proximate or rationale link and the period of more than almost eight months had gone, when the last FIR was registered in the month of July, 3 2025, since the order of detention was passed only on 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) and therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed on this ground. 4. Lastly, it is submitted that in the detention order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), there is a reference as such of the FIR of 2019 and the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which would not be applicable, since the said provisions came into force much later and therefore, it further shows the lack of application of mind by the authority. 5. As per the reply itself, which is filed by the respondents-State, it would be clear that the petitioner was involved in another three FIR’s and had been acquitted in the said cases and the said aspect was never brought to the notice of the authority by the sponsoring authority and the said authority could have taken a different point of veiw if it had been brought to his notice that he had been acquitted in three cases. 6. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in SLP (CRL.) No.18223 of 2025, titled as Roshini Devi Vs. The State of Telangana and Others, to submit that mere number of crimes as such and fresh cases would not be a ground to pass the detention orders and therefore, an application 4 of mind had to be there that whether public order was being either adversely affected for detention and that there was a fine distinction between “law and order” and “public order”. 7. Reliance is also placed upon another judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.2897 of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.14740 of 2024], titled as Dhanya M Vs. State of Kerala and Others, to submit that it curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offence(s), and therefore, cannot be used in the ordinary course of nature and the detention order as such had been quashed on this ground. 8. We are of the considered opinion that detention order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) is not liable to be sustained on various grounds, including the issue of proximity of live link, since there is a substanital period which had expired, since the last FIR was registered in the month of July, 2025 and the detention order was passed on 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1). 9. In Sama Aruna Vs. State of Telangana (2018) 12 SCC 150, it has been held that preventive detention order passed was without examining the existence of a live and proximate link between the alleged events and the order of detention would amount to punishment without trial, and that the 5 exceptional powers of preventive detention cannot be permitted to devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of State authority. The relevant paragaph reads as under:- “17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid detention order was passed on grounds which are stale and which could not have been considered as relevant for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu must be detained. The detention order must be based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of a person based on his past conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances. The live and proximate link that must exist between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him must be taken to have been snapped in this case. A detention order which is founded on stale incidents, must be regarded as an order of punishment for a crime, passed without a trial, though purporting to be an order of preventive detention. 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. See G. Reddeiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.2 , and P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India. 18 to 21...................... 22. We are of the view, that the detention order in this case is vitiated by taking into account incidents so far back in the past as would have no bearing on the immediate need to detain him without a trial. The satisfaction of the authority is not in respect of the thing in regard to which it is required to be satisfied. Incidents which are stale, cease to have relevance to the subject matter of the enquiry and must be treated as extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. 23. In this case, we find the authority has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever reach. A detaining authority must be taken to know both, the purpose and the procedure of law. It is no answer to say that the authority was satisfied. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. 6 State of Kerela and Ors.6, this Court observed, where the authority takes into account stale incidents which have gone by to seed it would be safe to infer that the satisfaction of the authority is not a genuine one. 24 and 25.............................. 26. The influence of the stale incidents in the detention order is too pernicious to be ignored, and the order must therefore go; both on account of being vitiated due to malice in law and for taking into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account.” 10. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mallada K. Sri Ram Vs. State of Telangana and Others, (2023) 13 SCC 537, wherein detention, as such, had been done under the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 and the High Court had dismissed the petition. The Apex Court was of the considered opinion that there was a delay of 5 months of passing the detention order after the registration of the second FIR and it amounted to non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 11. The Apex Court has time and again held that the Constitutional Courts, particularly would keep in mind the “golden triangle” formed under Articles 14, 19 & 21 so that they are diligently enforced and the shackles of preventive detention had to be unchained. 7 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is non-application of mind by the detaining authority, as it was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority that on earlier three occasions that the petitioner had been acquitted which has now come in the written statement filed by the respondents-State and especially the fact that in the other two cases alleged recovery is of small quantity. 13. Resultantly, we have no option but to allow the present petition and quash the detention order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner be set free forthwith in case he is not wanted in any other case. 14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed off accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 26th May, 2026 (Munish Thakur)