Judgment : K.R. Surana, J. Heard Mr. Pakinrichapbo, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi Wotsa, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.11.2025, passed by the Addl. Director General of Police, Nagaland, passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [PITNDPS Act for brevity], thereby ordering detention of the petitioner for a period of three months. WP (Crl.) 8/2026. 3) On the basis of FIR dated 26.05.2025, lodged by an ASI of Police, Narcotic PS, PHQ, Kohima, Narcotic PS Case No. 8/2025 was registered under Section 21(c), 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985, read with Section 61 of the BNS, 2023. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested by MVCP Duty Party between Khuzama village and Viswema Village. While the petitioner was in judicial custody, a proposal dated 03.10.2026, for detention of the petitioner was communicated by the Addl. Director General of Police (L&O), Nagaland, to the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Home Department (Political Branch) (respondent no.2) and while the petitioner was still in judicial custody, he was detained vide order dated under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988 by the authority of the said respondent no.2 for an initial period of three months with a view to prevent him from engaging in illicit traffic in NDPS. The said detention order was served on the petitioner on the same date, i.e. 17.11.2025 along with grounds of detention, information to the detainee in connection with his detention. The relevant part of the grounds of detention is extracted below:- “1. You, Henkhohao Lotjem are involved in the illegal possession and transportation of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. In the instant case, 50 (Fifty) soap cases of suspected heroin weighing approx. 541 (Five hundred forty-one) gms have been seized from your possession. 2. That your preventive detention is necessary to disrupt the existing NDPS network on a larger scale and provide a relief to the state of Nagaland struggling with the menace of drug abuse/ addiction. 3. Further, investigation has also revealed that you are actively engaging and dealing in illegal Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances; possession, sale, transportation and concealment of such psychotropic substances thus, confirming to acts under section 2(e) of PITDPS Act 1988. 4. 3. Further, investigation has also revealed that you are actively engaging and dealing in illegal Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances; possession, sale, transportation and concealment of such psychotropic substances thus, confirming to acts under section 2(e) of PITDPS Act 1988. 4. That, there has been a huge public outcry concerning traffic of illicit drugs which is causing problems of abuse and addiction of all age groups especially that of teenage school children. You are suspected to be directly or indirectly involved in the intra and inter-State network of smuggling and trafficking of illicit drugs whereby luring youngsters to addiction, resulting in them becoming peddlers/ carriers for easy earnings. 5. That, you are presently under judicial custody. On the basis of material placed before me, I am satisfied that you are likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities unless you are prevented from doing so by an appropriate order of preventive detention 6. That, if not detained you are likely to be released on bail and you will continue to be a threat to the peace and security of the state of Nagaland/ North Eastern and other States in the country and there is likelihood of you continuing in illicit trafficking of NDPS and may not co-operate or hamper investigation and moreover influence drug traffickers, syndicates, carriers, thereby obstructing investigation.” 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had a right to be heard personally before the PITNDPS Advisory Board, but the detaining authority had failed to inform the petitioner about such right, which is violative of the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that against his detention, on 04.12.2025, the petitioner had submitted his representation before the State Government, Advisory Board and Central Government through the Superintendent of Central Jail, Dimapur. However, vide order dated 10.12.2025, the respondent no.2, i.e. the detaining authority had rejected the representation. The Central Government (respondent no.4), by a memorandum dated 24.02.2026, rejected the representation and accordingly, it has been submitted that on ground of delay in disposal of the representation, the detention order is liable to be quashed. However, vide order dated 10.12.2025, the respondent no.2, i.e. the detaining authority had rejected the representation. The Central Government (respondent no.4), by a memorandum dated 24.02.2026, rejected the representation and accordingly, it has been submitted that on ground of delay in disposal of the representation, the detention order is liable to be quashed. The PITNDPS Advisory Board found sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner and accordingly, issued an order of confirmation of the detention of the detenue and further ordered that the petitioner be detained for another period of 3 (three) months w.e.f. 19.02.2026, which would expire on 18.05.2026. 5) It has been submitted that the respondents had not produced any record to show that the Central Government was informed of the detention of the petitioner within 10 (ten) days from the date of detention of the petitioner, which if not done, is violative of Section 3(2) of the NDPS Act, 1988 and thus vitiates the detention of the petitioner. 6) It has also been submitted that in the grounds of detention, it has been stated that if the petitioner is not detained, he will be a threat to peace and security of the State and there is likelihood that he would continue to traffic in NDPS and may not cooperate and hamper investigation. It was also alleged that the petitioner would be luring youngsters to addiction, resulting them to become peddlers and carriers. In this regard, it is submitted that the said allegations are only on assumptions without any proof. 7) Moreover, it has been submitted that the petitioner was already in judicial custody on 07.11.2025, when detention order was passed and by then the petitioner had not moved any petition for bail, there was no likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail and therefore, the grounds of detention was baseless. It has been submitted that the detention order was passed to frustrate default bail to the petitioner as envisaged under Section 187 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act, as investigation was not completed. 8) Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the detention order. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following cases: (1) Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244 , (2) Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1979) 1 SCC 465 . 8) Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the detention order. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following cases: (1) Rekha v. State of Tamilnadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244 , (2) Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1979) 1 SCC 465 . 9) Per contra, justifying the detention of the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate has produced the record and has submitted that on 26.06.2025, while the petitioner was travelling from Manipur on NH-02, between Khuzama and Viswema his vehicle bearing registration no. AS-01-AQ-2799 was halted for checking and in presence of independent witnesses, a total 50 (fifty) soap cases containing suspected heroin approximately, 541 (five hundred forty one) grams, concealed in a carton box were recovered and seized and the entire procedure of recovery was recorded in video. It was submitted that during investigation it was revealed that the petitioner, namely, Henkhohao Lotjem was instructed by one Mamang @ Lhunkhomang Baite to proceed towards Guwahati via Kohima and Dimapur with the consignment of the said psychotropic substance and this was the third trip of transporting NDPS. 10) It has been submitted that the petitioner was informed of his right to make representation to all the concerned authorities, and the petitioner had exercised such right by making effective representation and as such, the constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) was not violated. It was submitted that all procedures were followed and the Central Government was informed of the detention of the petitioner with all relevant materials vide e-mail dated 18.11.2025, and also sent by registered post vide transaction no. EE473025747IN dated 20.11.2025. It has also been submitted that all the relevant documents were placed before the detaining authority. Moreover, there was no non-compliance of any provision of law in passing the detention order, confirmation of the detention order and extension of the period of detention. Accordingly, there was no violation of any mandate either under the Constitution of India and any other law in force. 11) The learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner may be released on bail is not dependent on whether or not any bail application is filed, but it is a subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which was based on materials deemed cogent by the detaining authority. 11) The learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the petitioner may be released on bail is not dependent on whether or not any bail application is filed, but it is a subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which was based on materials deemed cogent by the detaining authority. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 12) Considered the submissions and cases cited. Also examined the records of File No. CON/PITNDPS/24/2025 of the Home Department, Political Branch, relating to proposal for detention of the petitioner. 13) On a perusal of the records, there appears to be no violation of any of the provisions of law in issuing the detention order No. CON/PITNDPS/24/2025/253 dated 17.11.2025, passed by the respondent no.2. Apparently, all relevant materials, including copy of FIR, CDR Analysis report, copies of statement of accused, search and seizure memo, etc. were considered. The records contain (i) the format for informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, signed by the authorities on 26.06.2025, and also signed by the petitioner 2; and (ii) information to the arrested person of rights available, which includes information that (i) right was available to be informed of the grounds of arrest in the language he/she understands; (ii) to be produced before Magistrate within 24 hours; (iii) right to consult and be defended by advocate of his choice; (iv) right to inform a friend/relative of his/her arrest; (v) right of person arrested in bailable offence to be released on bail on providing sureties; (vi) right to medical examination; and (vii) right to get a friend while under police custody. 14) The record also reveals that while being served with the detention order dated 17.11.2025, the petitioner was also served with (i) grounds of detention (Annexure-A) and (ii) Information for the detainee (Annexure-B). Thereafter, a report under Section 3(2) was submitted by the respondent no.2 to the Deputy Secretary, (PITNDPS), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India vide letter dated 18.11.2025. The contents of the said Annexure-B is extracted below:- “Information to the Detainee To, Henkhohao Lotjem (56 yrs) S/o Haokho Lotjem. V/o Kangchup Khul Bangla, Kangchung Patbung Village PS Gamnom Everyday P/add-4th Mile Diphupar Rongmei colony, Dimapur. Sub: Communication under Section 3 (3) of the PIINDPS Act, 1980 for the purposes of Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. V/o Kangchup Khul Bangla, Kangchung Patbung Village PS Gamnom Everyday P/add-4th Mile Diphupar Rongmei colony, Dimapur. Sub: Communication under Section 3 (3) of the PIINDPS Act, 1980 for the purposes of Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It is informed that you, Mr. Henkhohao Lotjem (M/56 yrs) have the right to represent against your detention to the Detaining Authority, to the State Government, the Central Government as well as to the Advisory Board. If you wish to avail this right, you should send your representation through the Jail Authorities where you are detained, in the manner indicated below: a) Representation meant for the Detaining Authority should be addressed to the Special Secretary (Home), North Block 1 Floor, Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Kohima, Nagaland, 797004. b) Representation meant for the State Government should be addressed to the Chief Secretary. Government of Nagaland, Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Kohima, Nagaland, 797004. c) Representation meant for the Central Government should be addressed to The Deputy Secretary, (PITNDPS). Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Room No.202, Jeevan Tara Building 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. d) Representation meant for the Advisory Board should be addressed to the Chairman, PITNDPS Advisory Board, C/o Office of the Special Secretary (Home). North Block 1ª Floor, Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Kohima, Nagaland, 797004. You are also informed that you have a right to claim a personal hearing before the PITNDPS Advisory Board constituted by the State Government under the aforesaid Act. (LIMASUNEP JAMIR) IPS Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland.” 15) The records also disclose that on 04.12.2025, the petitioner had submitted his representation addressed to The Special Secretary (Home) (respondent no.2); The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland (respondent no.1); the Joint Secretary (PITNDPS), Govt. of India (respondent no.4); and the Chairman, PITNDPS Advisory Board. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was not informed about his right to personal hearing. However, in his representation dated 04.12.2025, the petitioner is seen to have exercised his right to be defended by his advocate and exercised his right to be assisted by his friend. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was not informed about his right to personal hearing. However, in his representation dated 04.12.2025, the petitioner is seen to have exercised his right to be defended by his advocate and exercised his right to be assisted by his friend. It may be stated that the representation dated 04.12.2025, discloses that the petitioner had referred to provisions of relevant law and had also cited the cases of (i) Abdul Razak Abdul Wahib Sheikh v. S.N. Sinha, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr., (1989) 2 SCC 222 : 1989 SCC (Crl.) 326, (ii) Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244 , and (iii) Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1979) 1 SCC 465 . Thus, it appears that the petitioner never opted for a personal hearing. 16) The Special Secretary, Home Department (respondent no.2) and the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland had rejected the representation of the petitioner on 05.12.2025 and 10.12.2025 respectively. The records disclose that the Superintendent of Central Jail, Dimapur, had emailed the representation of the petitioner to the PITNDPS Section on 04.12.2025 and the PITNDPS Section of Department of Revenue, Govt. of India, by e-mail dated 04.12.2025, required parawise comments to be sent and information as to whether matter was referred to Advisory Board, and the parawise comments were forwarded on 15.12.2025 by the respondent no.2. 17) Thus, it is required to be examined as to whether there were violations on part of the State to protect the rights available to the petitioner, who is under detention under PITNDPS Act. The comparative analysis are as under:- 18) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the grounds of detention, it was stated that (i) if he is not detained, he will be a threat to peace and security of the State and there is likelihood that he would continue to traffic in NDPS and may not cooperate and hamper investigation; (ii) the petitioner would be luring youngsters to addiction, resulting them to become peddlers and carriers; (iii) petitioner was in judicial custody on 07.11.2025, when detention order was passed and he had not moved any petition for bail, thus, there was no likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail. In the opinion of the Court, these are matters of subjective satisfaction of the authorities because during investigation, it had come to the notice of the investigating agency that this time when the petitioner was arrested, it was his third trip carrying narcotic and psychotropic substances through Nagaland. 19) The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the allegations that the petitioner was a threat to the State and he would continue to traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and would lure youngsters to addiction, resulting them to become peddlers and carriers are only on assumptions without any proof. 20) In the said regard, it may be stated that the learned Govt. Advocate had submitted that the petitioner is not a resident of Nagaland, but for trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, he has an address at Dimapur and he was in the process of trafficking heroin from the State of Manipur to Guwahati in the State of Assam. Heroin is known to be trafficked from Myanmar, which is a part of infamous Golden Triangle. It is generally known that because of its porous, unfenced border with Myanmar via Manipur and its road network, Nagaland has become a transit corridor to the rest of India. 21) As per information available in the website of Department of Information and Public Relations, Govt. of Nagaland, in the year 2024, total number of case registered was 199. Total number of persons arrested were 343. Seizure of drugs in 2024 – Ganja- 545kg. 355 gms., value Rs.2,72,68,070/-; opium- 1010 kg.919 gms., value Rs.47,51,31,930/-; heroin- 15 kg. 211 gms. 318 mg., value Rs.53,23,85,000/-; brown sugar- 993 gms.728 mg., value Rs.7,97,49,120/-; crystal meth- 694 gms., value Rs.4,16,40,000/-; Yaba- 57,794 nos., value Rs.2,31,,17,600/-; synthetic drugs- 1,91,956, value Rs.38,39,120/-; cough syrup- 17,290, value Rs.51,87,000/-. As per the said website, Nagaland Police have also proposed and put traffickers / suppliers of narcotic substances under PITNDPS Act, 1988. In 2023, male- 08, female- 04; in 2024- male- 28, female- 19 and January, 2025, male- 0, female- 01 were detained. In January, 2025, Nagaland Police had seized drugs worth more than Rs.8.00 Crore and 7 (seven) cases were registered and 14 male and 4 female were arrested. In 2023, male- 08, female- 04; in 2024- male- 28, female- 19 and January, 2025, male- 0, female- 01 were detained. In January, 2025, Nagaland Police had seized drugs worth more than Rs.8.00 Crore and 7 (seven) cases were registered and 14 male and 4 female were arrested. State of Nagaland has a population of about 2.3o to 2.40 million people, with estimated 1,20,000 drug and substance users with majority of them under the age of 30, which is alarming. The said facts and figures show that the apprehension of the detaining authority that the petitioner may be luring youths to make them drug addicts and then to become carriers is not totally baseless. This act of trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by procuring the same from across the border of the Country must be held to be prejudicial to the security of the State and in maintenance of public order, as such substance destroys the young citizens. 22) In the arrest memo dated 26.06.2025, it is recorded that the petitioner has educational qualification of Class-V. As per the Format for information of grounds of arrest, the petitioner has signed in English and the petitioner has acknowledged that he has been informed about the grounds of arrest in a language he understands, i.e. Hindi. As stated above, the departmental file also contains the memo by which rights of the arrested person was provided to the petitioner, the receipt of which he has acknowledged by signing in English. The petitioner has also acknowledged the checklist dated 26.06.2025, for arresting a person under Section 35(1) BNSS by putting his signature. The record also contains compact disk containing video of detention order being served on the petitioner. 23) Therefore, all factors are found justifying detention of the petitioner under PITNDPS Act, 1988. However, in the case of Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India had held in paragraph 34 as under:- “34. 23) Therefore, all factors are found justifying detention of the petitioner under PITNDPS Act, 1988. However, in the case of Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 198 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India had held in paragraph 34 as under:- “34. … Third, where the concerned person is actually in jail custody at the time when an order of detention is passed against him and is not likely to be released for a fair length of time, it may be possible to contend that there could be no satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the likelihood of such a person indulging in activities which would jeopardize the security of the State or public order. …” 24) The said decision has been followed in many decisions of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts in the Country and thus, is the leading law on the said proposition. 25) Therefore, when the detention order was passed against the petitioner, he was in judicial custody and the respondents have not produced any material to show that he was on bail. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in paragraph 34 of the case of Haradhan Saha (supra), it was required of the detaining authority to apply its mind as to whether there was any likelihood of the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. Absence of the same is found to vitiate the impugned order of detention No. CON/PITNDPS/24/ 2025/253 dated 17.11.2025, passed by the Special Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, Home Department (respondent no.2), having not found to be sustainable, is hereby set aide and quashed. Consequently, the order No. CON/PITNDPS/24/2025/09 dated 18.02.2026, passed by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Nagaland, thereby confirming the detention and also extending the detention for another period of 3(three) months w.e.f. 19.02.2026 to 18.05.2026 is also set aside 26) Summing up, the writ petition is allowed. It is ordered that the detenue, namely, Henkhohao Lotjem is to be released forthwith, if he is not otherwise required to be detained in connection with any other case. 27) The records of the detention proceeding, being file no. CON/PITNDPS/ 24/2025 of the Home Department, Political Branch be returned to the learned Govt. Advocate.