1 2026:HHC:11875 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.WP No. 8 of 2026 Date of decision: 16.04.2026 ________________________________________________________ Anshul Bugwan …..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. Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Challenge in the present Criminal Writ Petition is to the order dated 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the petitioner has been detained for a period of three months while exercising the powers under Section 3(1) 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short the ‘PIT NDPS Act’). 2. The apparent ground as such for the detention of the petitioner was his involvement in two FIRs, whereby there was recovery of intermediate and small quantity of heroin. The details of the said cases read as under:- 1. Police Station West Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. in FIR No. 70/2024, dated 21.04.2024, under Section 21 of ND&PS Act, 1985, wherein approximately 9.39 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from his possession. 2. Police Station Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. in FIR No. 69/2024, dated 20.09.2024, under Sections 21 and 29 of ND&PS Act, 1985, wherein approximately 1.89 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from his possession. 3. The order of detention talks about repeated arrests of the petitioner, his criminal involvement in 3 large-scale trafficking, his activities after being released on bail and likelihood of his future involvement in illicit drug trafficking, as he is a habitual offender. In the said order, reference has also been made to the depositing of various small amounts totaling Rs.3,70,104/- in his bank account and the withdrawal of Rs.3,67,571/- during the period of seven months, i.e. from 21.05.2025 to 21.12.2025, to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was involved in illicit drug trafficking. 4. As per the detention order, the representation was to be filed by the petitioner before the Restraining Authority and not before the Authority who had passed the detention order, i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 5. Another aspect which would require consideration is that live link as such has been snapped in as much as the last FIR, i.e. FIR No. 69 of 2024, had been registered against the petitioner on 20.09.2024, 4 wherein approximately 1.89 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from his possession. 6. It is not disputed that the detention order was served and executed upon the petitioner on 28.01.2026, which would be clear from the order of the Himachal Pradesh State Advisory Board (PIT NDPS Act, 1988) at Shimla, (Annexure R-3/1), which has confirmed the detention of the petitioner, wherein the plea taken was that petitioner is a drug addict and remained in Rehabilitation Centre at Theog was rejected. The said Certificate (Annexure P-2) has also been appended by the petitioner in support of his case to take a plea that he was suffering from such ailment and had been admitted in De-Addiction & Rehabilitation Centre, Theog on 25.08.2025 and was discharged on 19.12.2025, at the request of his family and thereafter, he was actively volunteering at the aforesaid Institution up to 08.01.2026. 7. The factum of the petitioner staying at the aforesaid Centre from 25.08.2025 to 19.12.2025 has 5 also been admitted by the State in its report (Annexure R-3/2) placed on record, addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shimla, District Shimla by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. Therefore, there is no dispute that the petitioner himself is suffering from the ailment of drug addiction. 8. The Apex Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 4 SCC 51, has specifically held that right of the person detained to make a representation is before the Authority making the order of detention. 9. In the present case, the detention order is not expressly clear that the representation was to be preferred to the Authority who had passed the order, rather it only delegates the right to the petitioner to make a representation to the Restraining Authority, which is violative of Article of 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as has been held in the case (supra). The relevant part reads as under:- “14. Article 22(5) must, therefore, be construed to mean that the person 6 detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention which can be made not only to the Advisory Board but also to the detaining authority, i.e., the authority that has made the order of detention or the order for continuance of such detention, who is competent to give immediate relief by revoking the said order as well as to any other authority which is competent under law to revoke the order for detention and thereby give relief to the person detained. The right to make a representation carries within it a corresponding obligation on the authority making the order of detention to inform the person detained of his right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authorities who are required to consider such a representation. 31. With due respect we find it difficult to agree with both the premises. Construing the provisions of Article 22(5) we have explained that the right of the person detained to make a representation against the order of detention comprehends the right to make such a representation to the authority which can grant such relief, i.e., the authority which can revoke the order of detention and set him at liberty and since the officer who has made the order of detention is competent to revoke it, the person detained has the right to make a representation to the officer who made the order of detention. The first premises that such right does not flow from Article 22(5) cannot, therefore, be accepted.” 10. Another aspect, which finds favour with us is that since the orders of detention are drastically harsh 7 as the petitioner was suffering from drug addition. Therefore, only if the petitioner was involved in illicit drug trafficking under the NDPS Act and there was live and proximate link as such, the detention order could have been passed. As noticed above, the last FIR i.e. FIR No. 69 of 2024 was registered on 20.09.2024, and in the year 2025, there was no further involvement of the petitioner in such activities under the NDPS Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is live and proximate link as such. 11. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Trpura, 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1333, wherein it has been held that delay in passing the order of detention from the date of proposal after five months would defeat the very purpose of prevention action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings, thereby snapping the “live and proximate link” between the prejudicial activities. 8 12. In such circumstances, when there are no criminal activities for the last one year and four months from the date of the last involvement of the petitioner in FIR No. 69 of 2024, i.e. 20.09.2024 till the order of detention on 23.01.2026, we are of considered opinion that the order of detention as such cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the detention order dated 23.01.2026 (Anexure P- 1) and also consequential proceedings are quashed. 14. The petitioner be set free, if not required in any other case. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. April 16, 2026 (Bipin C. Negi) (hemlata) Judge.