1 2026:HHC:20664 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.WP No. 33 of 2026 Date of decision: 29.05.2026 ________________________________________________________ Rajat Verma …..Petitioner Versus State of HP & others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Saini, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) In the present case, the petitioner challenges the detention order dated 28.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short ‘PIT NDPS Act’), 1988, by the Special Secretary (Home), 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the detention has been ordered on account of three FIRs lodged against the petitioner. The details of the said FIRs read as under:- i. FIR No. 151/2019 dated 08.12.2019 at Police Station Patlikuhal, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 21 and 25 of the ND&PS Act, 1985, for the recovery of approximately 16 grams of Heroin/Chitta. ii. FIR No. 119/2021 dated 21.12.2021 at Police Station Patlikuhal, District Kullu, H.P., under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act, 1985, for the recovery of approximately 10 grams of Heroin/Chitta. iii. FIR No. 62/2024 dated 28.09.2024 at Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Section 21 of the ND&PS Act, 1985, for the recovery of approximately 30 grams of Heroin/Chitta. 2. It is stated that the said detention order has now been approved by the Himachal Pradesh State Advisory Board on 11.05.2026 and the said period has further been extended by one month. The same has been acted upon by passing a subsequent order dated 3 20.05.2026 (Annexure R-3/II), whereby the said period was to take effect from the date of expiry of the initial period of detention of the detenue for a period of three months. 3. The petitioner is stated to have been taken into custody on 06.03.2026 and thus detention period will be till 05.07.2026. 4. The petitioner is stated to have been involved in the aforesaid FIRs, which led to passing of the detention order dated 28.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) in light of the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police, District Kullu dated dated 04.02.2026 regarding the issuance of a preventive detention order against the petitioner. 5. It is stated in the detention order that after the release of the petitioner in the last case FIR No. 62 of 2024 on 16.12.2024, the petitioner was again involved in illegal trafficking activities and the fear of prosecution had no effect on him. It is thus submitted that intelligence inputs and source reports from the 4 concerned Police Station and Up-Pradhan Dawara, create a live and close link between his past actions and the real possibility of his continuing illegal trafficking in the near future. The order of detention as such has been passed. 6. The Government Authority, while passing the detention order dated 28.02.2026, has mentioned that the recovered contraband in the aforesaid FIRs, was of intermediate quantity which shows his deep involvement in the illegal drug trade and his role as a major distributor of narcotics in the region and the traditional law enforcement methods have failed to deter him from involving in illegal drug trade. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue of live link has cropped up as there has been a considerable delay between the lodging of the last FIR No. 62 of 2024, i.e on 28.09.2024, and release of the petitioner on bail on 16.12.2024 and there is no such involvement of the petitioner in any NDPS case thereafter. A period of 5 over one year has gone by from his release on bail and it was only on the recommendation of the concerned Superintendent of Police, on 04.02.2026, that the detention order has been passed. There is an argument as such, that the proposal should have come forth earlier and the detention order should have been passed immediately thereafter. 8. Secondly, it is argued that the petitioner has not been afforded an effective opportunity to file a representation to the concerned Authority at the earliest, which is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 9. Reliance can thus be placed upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 12 SCC 150, wherein it has been held that a 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 exceptional powers of 6 preventive detention cannot be permitted to devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of State authority. It has also been held that the two FIRs registered against the detenue were capable of being dealt with in the ordinary course of criminal law. The relevant portion 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. 7 Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.2 , and P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India). 18 to 21 x--------x----------x-----------x-------------x 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. 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 & 25 x--------x----------x-----------x-------------x 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 8 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 the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 11. The said view has been followed in Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587, wherein also while relying upon the judgment in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244, it has been held that to unchain the shackles of preventive detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrined in our Constitution, particularly 9 under the “golden triangle” formed by Articles 14,19 & 21, are diligently enforced. The relevant paras of the said judgment read as under:- “65. Interference by this Court with orders of detention, routinely issued under the Act, seems to continue unabated. Even after Mallada K Sri Ram (supra), in another decision of fairly recent origin in the case of Shaik Nazneen vs. The State of Telangana, this Court set aside the impugned order of detention dated 28th October, 2021 holding that seeking shelter under preventive detention law was not the proper remedy. 66. It requires no serious debate that preventive detention, conceived as an extraordinary measure by the framers of our Constitution, has been rendered ordinary with its reckless invocation over the years as if it were available for use even in the ordinary course of proceedings. To unchain the shackles of preventive detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrined in our Constitution, particularly under the ‘golden triangle’ formed by Articles 14, 19 and 21, are diligently enforced.” 12. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would go on to show that safeguards enshrined in our 10 Constitution, particularly under the “golden triangle” formed by Articles 14,19 & 21, are diligently enforced and by passing the detention order, the State as such cannot take away the liberty of persons on the mere apprehension that the individual could be involved. The live and proximate link has to exist and for a period of one year, no FIR had been registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the exceptional powers of preventive detention cannot be permitted to devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of State authority. 13. The offer, as such, of filing a representation against the detention order was not given to the petitioner before the detaining authority, which is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 51. Therefore, we have no option but to quash the detention order dated 28.02.2026 (Annexure P-1). Ordered accordingly. We direct that the petitioner be 11 set free forthwith immediately, if no other case has been registered against him. 14. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. May 29, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.