1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No.05 of 2026 Date of Decision : 03.03.2026 Sarvajeet Singh …… Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander 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) By way of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 18.12.2025, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and further proceedings initiated on the said order, whereby, it was communicated to him, on 19.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) from the Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi, Himachal Pradesh to the Superintendent of Jail, Sub Jail, Kishanpura, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh that there was a detention for three months in reference to the said order. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though, it is the case of the petitioner that the detention order, as such, was not supplied to him, but the State has controverted the same by placing on record the detention information memo dated 20.12.2025 (Annexure R-3/2), when he was apparently detained. 3. Perusal of the said detention information memo would go on to show that there is reference to the orders passed by the detaining authority bearing No.HOME(A)E(5)-17/25 dated 18.12.2025. It is further mentioned that the copy of the memo had been sent to him free of cost. The petitioner had signed the said memo and also stated that he wanted to inform his father, Khushi Ram about the said detention. Similarly Khushi Ram’s signatures are also on the said detention memo. 4. In such circumstances, the argument raised that the detention order as such was not supplied to him, is without any basis. Further, another aspect remains that the detention is on the basis of five FIRs pertaining to the law under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 from the period June, 2018 to October, 2025 on account of the recovery of various amounts of Heroin/Chitta ranging from small quantity to intermediate quantity. The details of the said FIRs are as under:- “i In FIR No. 136/18 dated 04.06.2018 at PS Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P. u/s 21-61-85 of NDPS Act around 9.720 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him; ii. In FIR No. 296/21 dated 23.12.2021 at PS Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P. u/s 21-61-85 of NDPS Act around 5.08 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him; 3 iii. In FIR No. 33/22 dated 29.01.2022 at PS Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. u/s 21-61-85 of NDPS Act around 5.28 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him; iv. In FIR No. 24/25 dated 05.03.2025 at PS Manpura, Distt. Solan, H.P. u/s 21, 29-61-85 of NDPS Act around 1.22 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him; v. In FIR No. 107/25 dated 14.10.2025 at PS Manpura, Distt. Solan, H.P. u/s 21, 29-61-85 of NDPS Act around 4.3 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him.” 5. It is apparently on the basis of proposal of Superintendent of Police District Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, the recommendation, as such, was made for the detention of the petitioner, on 08.12.2025, which was thus acted upon by the authorities while passing the impugned order dated 18.12.2025. 6. Perusal of the detention order would go on to show that it does not find mention that the petitioner is entitled to make any representation to the detaining authority or the Advisory Board and this aspect is thus a matter which requires intervention. 7. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rekha vs. State of Tamilnadu TR Sec. To Govt. & another, (2011) 4 SCR 740, whereby the Apex Court has, time and again, held that liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India should not be violated and merely on the background of large number of cases, detention would not be justified and the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance has to be made with procedural safeguards. Relevant Paragraphs read as under:- 4 “29. Prevention detention is, by nature, repugnant to democratic ideas and an anathema to the rule of law. No such law exists in the USA and in England (except during war time). Since, however, Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of India permits preventive detention, we cannot hold it illegal but we must confine the power of preventive detention within very narrow limits, otherwise we will be taking away the great right to liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India which was won after long, arduous, historic struggles. It follows, therefore, that if the ordinary law of the land (Indian Penal Code and other penal statutes) can deal with a situation, recourse to a preventive detention law will be illegal” 30 to 34. xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx 35. It must be remembered that in cases of preventive detention no offence is proved and the justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability, and there is no conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. Preventive detention is often described as a 'jurisdiction of suspicion', (Vide State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande, (supra) - para 63). The detaining authority passes the order of detention on subjective satisfaction. Since clause (3) of Article 22 specifically excludes the applicability of clauses (1) and (2), the detenuis not entitled to a lawyer or the right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. To prevent misuse of this potentially dangerous power the law of preventive detention has to be strictly construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however, technical, is, in our opinion, mandatory and vital.” 8. The right of making representation, giving an opportunity to the detainee, as such, against the detention order being unconstitutional was dilated upon by a Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 4 SCC 51. The relevant Paragraphs read as under:- 5 “14. Article 22(5) must, therefore, be construed to mean that the person 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.” 9. In similar circumstances, in Cr.WP No.20 of 2025, titled Sachin Thakur vs. State of H.P. and another, decided on 25.09.2025, we have also taken the same view while noting that there has been non compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, since representation submitted by the father has not been decided. 10. Keeping in view the above, since the effective right, as such, of the petitioner to agitate regarding the detention not being brought to his 6 notice, we are of the considered opinion that the detention order suffers from infirmity and resultantly the same is required to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner be set forthwith free, if not required in any other case. 11. In view of above terms, present petition is disposed of, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) March 03, 2026 (KS/Mamta) Judge