Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003072026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/1/2026 Md Nazir Hussain Husband of Sahida Khatoon @ Anju, Solsolo Village, PO and SP Sadar, Nagaon District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Commissioner cum Secretary, Home, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111 2:The Commissioner cum Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 3:The Director General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 4:The Zonal Director Age: 0 Occupation : Narcotics Control Bureau Itanagar 791111 5:The Superintendent of Police Age: 0 Occupation : ICR Naharlagun/ Nirjuli Govt of Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/4 6:The Superintendent of Prison Age: 0 Occupation : JHQ Itanagar Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Tabit Tapak, T Tabing,Bebeng Siboh,Aso Dalbong Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), P P of AP BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 07-04-2026 Heard Shri T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. Though, this matter is at the order stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted upon its hearing as it relates to preventive detention. 3. The petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 28.01.2026, passed by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Home, Government of Arunachal Pradesh under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (PITNDPS). Page No.# 3/4 4. Shri Tapak, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner has been released on bail by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Yupia. He has also contended that in one of the cases, the police has filed final report and in 2(two) cases, the trial is going on, where she is on bail. 5. On the other hand, both Shri Nabam, learned AAG and Shri D. Loyi, learned Public Prosecutor have contended that the challenge is mainly on the merits of the case and not on any procedural infirmity. They have further submitted that records would reveal that the petitioner is a notorious drug peddler. 6. On specific query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make any submission on violation of any procedural leading to detention. The submissions are mainly on the merits of the case. He has also contended that in the final report submitted in one of the cases, the substance itself was found not be a contraband under the NDPS. 7. We are, however, of the view that in a matter of preventive detention, the challenge can be examined which are mainly on the procedural aspect. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authorities which has been confirmed by the Advisory Board cannot be a matter of a roving enquiry by this Court when prima facie, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the said order. 8. The menace of drugs in the society is a burning problem which requires utmost attention as the same has the propensity to destroy the Page No.# 4/4 new generation and consequently the entire nation and it is mainly for this reason that the PITNDPS Act was enacted. Of course in an appropriate case, interference may be required if there is violation of the procedure prescribed. However, in this case, there is no specific allegation of violation of any procedure, as mentioned above. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant