IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No.49 of 2026 Decided on : 30.07.2026 Pritam ...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 02.05.2026 (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’), whereby the detenue was detained for three months under Section 5 of the said Act on account of his involvement in two FIRs, whereby he was prosecuted under the NDPS Act. The details of the said FIRs are as under:- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- Sr. No. Details 1. Under First Information Report No.152/2021 dated 21.08.2021 at Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, HP, approximately 29.99 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Under First Information Report No.290/2025 dated 19.11.2025 at Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, HP, approximately 38.72 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. The detention order had been passed on the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur, HP on 28.03.2026 (Annexure P-2), as there were credible inputs received from the State CID that the detenue was fully active in the trade of illicit narcotic substances and selling chitta/heroin to the students and youth of Bilaspur and surrounding areas, and therefore the State had established a live and proximate link. 3. Specific reference was made to other two FIRs, i.e. FIR No.51 of 2021, in which he had been allegedly granted bail on 10.09.2025 and another FIR No.24 of 2026, in which he had been arrested on 12th of February, 2026, which -3- weighed with the State on account of fact that there was a repetitive pattern of conduct, and that he was a habitual offender. The relevant portion reads as under: - “3. No sign of reform:- The antecedents of the proposed detenue demonstrate a complete absence of reform and an obstinate defiance of the rule of law. His habitual involvement in illegal trade, marked by an unobstructed transition from judicial custody back into criminal activities, underscores the systemic failure of ordinary penal statutes to act as a deterrent. In particular, in FIR No. 51/2021 (granted on 10.09.2025), while on bail he demonstrated an immediate tendency to re- offend, which resulted in his arrest on 12.02.2026 under FIR No. 24/2026. This repetitive pattern of conduct confirms that the subject is a habitual offender, for whom standard judicial proceedings are inadequate to prevent further prejudicial activities.” 4. In such circumstances, counsel for the petitioner at the outset, had raised the said issue that the subsequent two FIRs bearing No.51 of 2021 and 24 of 2026, were never in the proposal of the Superintendent of Police and rather, a representation had already been made on that account to the State, bringing the said fact to their notice on 17th June, 2026 -4- (Annexure P-6). Apart from various other grounds, the petitioner had been only served four documents i.e., (i) the impugned order, (ii) the Superintendent of Police’s proposal dated 28.03.2026, (iii) Annexure-A, the checklist documents against the detenue, and (iv) a single page regarding adverse activities of the proposed detenue. 5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the rejection as such by the authorities of the representation dated 13th July, 2026, does not in any manner remove the defect in the detention order and rather, the view taken by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), HP, while rejecting the said representation is an admission that there is an inadvertent clerical and typographical error as reported by the Director General of Police, and the narration of the FIR numbers does not affect the substance of the present petition. The said stance of the State, while rejecting the representation, reads as under:- 4. As regards the alleged inconsistency in the FIR numbers mentioned in the proposal and the grounds of detention. the original record has been carefully examined. It is observed that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was arrived at on the basis of the complete material placed before it. The reference of -5- different FIR numbers in one part of the record is merely an inadvertent clerical/typographical error as reported by the DGP. H.P. However, the correct FIR ie. FIR No 152/2021 and FIR No. 290/2025 of the P.S Sadar and criminal antecedents of the detenue are correctly reflected in the ground of detention. Any inadvertent clerical or typographical discrepancy, if any, in the narration of FIR particulars does not affect the substance of the detention order, as the relevant material was duly considered before recording satisfaction. The alleged discrepancy neither misled the detenue nor caused any prejudice to him. 6. In the reply also, it has been mentioned that there is a source report (Annexure R-3), on the basis of which the petitioner has been detained. Perusal of the said source report would go on to show that it forms the basis of detention as per the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. The same reads as under:- It has been come to notice from well-informed sources that Pritam, son of Shri Jeet Ram, resident of Village Bagi, PO Binola, Police Station and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is selling Chitta heroin near/surrounding his home. He owns a grey coloured Alto car bearing registration No. HP24A-9140. Sources say that he brings Chitta/heroin from Chandigarh -6- and Amritsar. Locals are deeply angry about the above-mentioned individual's Chitta sales. If he is monitored systematically, a large quantity of the drug could be recovered from him. 7. It is, thus, apparent that the detention order is based on the ominous information, which cannot be said to be credible and the paragraph reproduced above, would go on to show that it is only on account of a well-informed source, as per the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, that the case was so processed further by the Superintendent of Police. 8. Reference can be invited to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Ichhu Devi Choraria v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 531, while dilating on the issue of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the fact that no person can be deprived of life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It was accordingly held that there has to be strict and scrupulous observance of the requirements of law and if it is breached in the slightest manner, the Court would not hesitate to strike down the order of detention and direct to release, even though the detention may have been valid till the breach had occurred. -7- 9. In Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana, (2020) 13 SCC 632, it has been held that the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not to be based on irrelevant or invalid grounds and if it has a stale link, it causes prejudice and the stale material would have no bearing on the probability of the detenue engaging in judicial activities in the future. 10. The said views have thereafter been followed in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and Others (2023) 9 SCC 557, wherein it is held that the burden of showing the detention is to be in accordance with the procedure established by law and has been placed by the Apex Court on the detaining authority, once it pertains to the matters relating to the life and liberty of the individuals. 11. In the peculiar facts of the present case, once the principal reason was that there was no chance of reform on the basis of the two non-existent FIRs, we are of the considered opinion that despite an opportunity being given to the State to rectify its mistake, it has chosen not to do so. Resultantly, keeping in view the fact that there is a lack of credible input and the proximate live link is as such missing, we can safely hold that the exercise of such power is -8- excessive, arbitrary, and draconian, keeping in view the settled law on the issue of preventive detention. 12. 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 02.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) along with consequential order dated 13.07.2026, 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 30th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)