IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No.20 of 2026 Decided on : 07.07.2026 Mehmood Ali ...Petitioner Versus The State of HP and Others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s Rakesh Kumar and Panku Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) By way of the present petition, challenge has been laid to the order of detention passed on 18.03.2026 (Annexure-P-1), under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PIT NDPS Act’) for a period of three months and the subsequent order passed on 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-6), whereby the detention has been further extended for a period of two months, on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board, dated 24.04.2026. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. Initially, the reason for detention was on account of involvement of the petitioner in two FIRs, the details of which are as under:- Sr. No. Details 1. At Police Station Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, FIR No.11/2023 dated 05.11.2023, under Sections 8/15(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985,wherein approximately 1042.850 Kilograms of poppy husk was recovered from him; 2. At police station Pillukhera, District Jind, Haryana, FIR No.85/2024 dated 30.04.2024, under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, wherein approximately 2 kilograms 563 grams of opium was recovered from him. 3. As per the detention order, the family of the petitioner along with some other persons were involved in the trafficking of opium and doda (poppy husk) from Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, in 10-15 small/large vehicles, which were used for transportation of the NDPS material. In live and proximate link, it has been admitted that in FIR No.183/2025 dated 24.12.2025 his son-Sanjay Khan was arrested and the vehicle which was seized was HP-17G-4141. -3- The name of petitioner’s daughter is Smt. Ruksar. Petitioner’s sons Firoz Khan and Sanjay Khan are stated to be key-operation members and have history of offences under the NDPS Act and other violent crimes. There are other key- associates who have lavish lifestyle, disproportionate to the known lawful income. 4. The case of the State is that as per detention order, the petitioner was released on bail on 04.03.2024 in the first FIR i.e. FIR No.11/2023 and was again involved in the illegal trafficking and was subsequently arrested again in the second FIR No.85/2024. In such circumstances, justification was made of the detention order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that in first FIR in question, the petitioner was granted bail on 15.12.2023, by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur (Annexure P-2), in which it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner was not present in or near the car, from which the recovery has been effected. He had been made accused only on the confessional statement of the principal-accused and he had been connected on account of his CDRs being placed on record, that some calls have been exchanged between the petitioner and the principal-accused. The absence of any connecting -4- evidence as such and the fact that there was no telephonic communication between the present petitioner and the principal-accused on the day of incident as well as during the days immediately preceding the day of incident, the petitioner was given the benefit of regular bail. 6. Similarly, reference is made to the order of grant of bail to the petitioner by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M-31159 of 2024 on 02.04.2025. It is pointed out that from the order, it would be clear that the accused, who were apprehended at the spot had suffered disclosure statements and had been later exonerated by the police and the petitioner had been nominated in their place along with others. Therefore, the benefit of bail had been granted to the petitioner. 7. The detention order has been passed thereafter, after nearly a year. The petitioner had also filed a representation on 27.03.2026 (Annexure P-5), wherein he has specifically mentioned about the absence of real live and proximate link, and the latest FIR in the case at hand is of the year 2025 and neither he was present at the spot nor there was any recovery from him. The FIRs in question were old and concluded incidents already under trial and could not justify preventive detention and resultantly setting aside of -5- the detention order dated 18.03.2026, as such had been prayed. 8. Apparently, the matter was taken up with the Advisory Board which gave its adverse opinion on 24.04.2026. The Advisory Board was of the view that the family of the present petitioner is still involved in the trafficking of narcotics and detaining such a person would put rest to such activity for a while and therefore gave the opinion that the enhancement should be for a period of two months and eventually that was put in force by the subsequent order dated on 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-6). These orders are also the subject matter of the amended petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the last Income Tax Return filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2021-22 to demonstrate the income of the petitioner by business and profession. The total income shown in the Income Tax Return is Rs.8.20 lacs and out of which Rs.1,00,378/- was paid as tax. Various other returns for the other assessment years have also been placed on record, apart from the Income Tax Returns of other family members as such, but we are not going into their detail and the fact remains that the petitioner as such is an -6- income tax assessee for the last more than 10 years. Apparently, there is also return of year 2016-17 on record, wherein also income from the business has been shown as Rs.4.19 lacs. 10. It is noticed that the last FIR was registered against the petitioner was on 30.04.2024 and he has been granted bail on 02.04.2025 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while noticing the fact that the petitioner had been implicated on the statement of the main accused. The detention order has now been passed only after a period of a year on 18.03.2026, on the recommendation and apparently on account of fact that the son of the petitioner was involved in an FIR, lodged on 24.12.2025. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also justified that live link as such did not exist and, on that account, also the detention order is not likely to sustain. He has argued that the concept of preventive detention cannot be converted into punitive detention and such detention orders can be challenged on account of arbitrariness and submitted that once the live link is missing as such, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 12. It is settled position that drastic provisions have to be very strictly applied and reliance can be placed upon the -7- judgment of the Apex Court in Vijay Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 14, that preventive detention is considered as treacherous and an anathema to civilized thought and democratic polity. Similarly, the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244, was referred to on the ground that on mere suspicion or reasonable probability there being no conviction, preventive detention as such could not be resorted to. 13. Accordingly, on the issue of snapping of live link, reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 1333 to hold out that once a period over a year had passed and the petitioner had been released on bail and he did not indulge in any further activity, mere involvement of other family members pertaining to the provisions of NDPS, would not be a ground for such detention. Reliance has been placed upon a similar order passed by this Division Bench in Cr. WP No.30 of 2025, titled Sagar Vs. State of HP and Ors. decided on 09.04.2026, wherein the order of collective punishment as such upon the family was not held to be justified. Even the State has not brought to our notice that representation, -8- which has also been filed on 27.03.2026, has actively considered by the State and either decided by the Advisory Board. 14. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that a case has been made out for quashing the detention. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the detention order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure-P-1), under the NDPS Act for a period of three months and the subsequent order passed on 04.05.2026 (Annexure P-6), whereby the detention has been further extended for a period of two months, on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board are quashed. The petitioner be set free, if not required in any other case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 07th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)