IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No.41 of 2026 Decided on : 20.07.2026 Sumit Kumar ...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 Munish Kumar and Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) By way of the present petition, challenge has been laid to the order of detention passed on 07.05.2026 (Annexure-P-1), under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘PIT NDPS Act’). 2. The ground and the reasons on which the detention order was passed was that the petitioner was arrested in FIR No.78 of 2025 dated 10.12.2025, whereby 5.6 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 3. Keeping in view the fact that the Director General of Police, H.P., vide his communication dated 22.04.2026, as such, had recommended the case, the detention order had been passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that the petitioner was also involved in another FIR bearing No. 202 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, lodged at PS Sadar, Solan, H.P., but he had been acquitted on 30.08.2025. It is pointed out that mere involvement in other cases under the IPC, as such, would not attract the draconian provisions of the PIT NDPS Act and, thus, it is submitted that the reason of credible and cogent intelligence inputs, as recorded in the detention order, was on account of his prior involvement in the NDPS cases and his continued conduct posing a grave threat to society and to public order. 5. Reference has been made to the judgment of acquittal dated 30.08.2025 in FIR No.2202 of 2018, passed by Special Judge-III, Solan (Annexure P-4) to point out that the prosecution case itself had been found doubtful, to give the benefit of acquittal. 6. Learned Addl. Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that due to his continued and repeated -3- involvements pose a severe threat to society and public order. It is submitted that his representation was also rejected vide order dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure R3/4). He further submits that the preventive detention was necessary to prevent persons from engaging in illicit traffic, the material placed before the detaining authority was found sufficient, and the detaining authority had arrived at the requisite satisfaction, therefore, the order cannot be said to have been passed in any mechanical manner. 7. We have gone through the paper book and find that the basic reason, which weighed with the detaining authority, was prior involvement of the petitioner in NDPS cases, and allegedly his continued conduct posing a grave threat to society and to public and thus, there was a finding that continuing criminal propensity, justified the preventive action to restrain him from further engaging in such prejudicial activities. 8. Unfortunately, the detaining authority has not gone through the order of acquittal dated 30.08.2025, recorded in favour of the petitioner. Perusal of the same would go on to show that though there were allegations of recovery from the person, as such, of the petitioner, who was also being -4- prosecuted for conscious possession of 4.08 grams of heroin along with another co-accused, but the Court came to the conclusion that even the independent witnesses, as such, had not supported the version of the police, and none of them had supported the factual aspect and even the consent had been obtained jointly, though it should have been done separately. 9. In such circumstances, the whole case is based on the earlier involvement and without even examining the manner in which the petitioner is stated to have been involved in the first case and granted the benefit of acquittal, thus, the order of detention suffers from arbitrariness, as such, and did not examine the total conspectus of the background, as such, and therefore, on that account also, it cannot be sustained. 10. Resultantly, we have no option but to allow the petition, since it is a settled principle that preventive detention is draconian procedure, as such, and the right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as such, cannot be curtailed just at the whims and fancies of the detaining authority, on an involvement in a solitary case pending under the provisions of the NDPS Act. 11. It is settled position that drastic provisions have to be very strictly applied and reliance can be placed upon the -5- 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. 11. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the case has been made out for quashing the detention. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the detention order dated 07.05.2026 (Annexure-P-1), under Section 3(1) of PIT NDPS Act is 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 20th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)