Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020003182026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/10/2026 SMTI. RAMINA R/O HOUSE NO. 06, TOURIST LODFGE, NEAR NST BUS STATION, MEDICAL COLONY DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT, KOHIMA, NAGALAND - 797004 2:SPECIAL SECRETARY (HOME) NORTH BLOCK 1ST FLOOR NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT KOHIMA NAGALAND 797004 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DGP) NAGALAND P.R. HILL KOHIMA NAGALAND - 797001 4:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (PITNDPS) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO. 202 JEEVAN TARA BUILDING 5 PARLIAMENT STREET Page No.# 2/7 NEW DELHI 110001 5:CHAIRMAN PITNDPS ADVISORY BOARD C/O OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL SECRETARY (HOME) NORTH BLOCK 1ST FLOOR NAGALAND CIVIL SECRETARIAT KOHIMA NAGALAND - 797004 6:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DIMAPUR HILL VIEW COLONY (OPPOSITE STATE BANK OF INDIA MAIN BRANCH DIMAPUR) NEAR AO BAPTIST CHURCH LENGRIJAN ROAD LENGRIJAN DIMAPUR NAGALAND - 797113 7:SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL CENTRAL JAIL DIMAPUR NAGALAND NIULAND DIMAPUR ROAD 4TH MILE DIMAPUR NAGALAND - 79711 Advocate for the Petitioner : M RAHMAN, MEDO VERO,CHUBANUNGKUM Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Date : 03-06-2026 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Page No.# 3/7 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mizanur Rahman :Mr. Chubanungkum : Mr. Medo Vero Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1,2,3,5,6 &7: Ms. Inaholi Advocate for the respondent No. 4 : Mr. Z.N. Ngulliei, CGSC Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of : No the Operative part of the judgment ? Whether full judgment has been : Yes pronounced ? JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 03.06.2026 (Devashis Baruah,J) Heard Mr. Mizanur Rahman appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1,2,3,5,6 and 7 and Mr. Z.N. Ngullie, learned CGC for the Respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner herein who is the mother of the detenue Amit Khan has filed the instant petition challenging the Detention Order dated 09.04.2026 made under the provision of section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1988 as well Page No.# 4/7 as other consequential steps so taken in pursuance to the said Detention Order. 3. The record reveals that on 29.01.2026 while carrying out a surprise checking at around 20.34 hrs some suspected contraband drugs were found concealed inside Room No.104 of Hotel Rhino located near SBI main Branch, Medical Colony Dimapur Nagaland. The customer/occupant of Room No.104 fled away from the scene when the search was made. However, the ID card of one Johurul Islam was found. A suo moto FIR was registered with East PS Case No.015/26 under Section 21(b) NDPS Act 1985 (Act of 1985). In course of the investigation so carried out a team of 6 member from the East PS left for Guwahati on 07.02.2026 on the strength of a movement order issued by the Commissioner of Police Dimapur. On 08.02.2026 the team arrested the accused Johurul Islam along with another person namely, Saiful Islam and both were produced at Basistha Guwahati Assam. 4. It is the case of the detaining authority that based upon the statement of Johurul Islam, the detenue in the instant proceeding namely Amit Khan was arrested on 09.02.2026 for his involvement in connection with East PS Case No.0015/26 under Section 21(b) of the Act of 1985 for further investigation. Page No.# 5/7 5. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of arrest of the detenue, while the grounds of arrest which was provided to the detenue under Section 47 of the BNSS mentions the name of the detenue however, in the notice which were issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, it was mentioned that the name of the detenue was Abdul Khan. Based on that aspect, an application for bail was filed before the Court of learned Special Judge NDPS, Dimapur and on account of violation of Section 48 of the BNSS which constitute a violation to Article 21 of the Constitution, the detenue was released on bail on 06.04.2026. 6. The record further reveals that when the Detention Order was passed on 09.04.2026, the detaining authority was not aware that the detenue have already been granted bail and this is apparent from ground No.3 of the grounds of detention wherein it has been mentioned that the detenue was still in judicial custody. 7. Be that as it may, on the basis of the Detention Order dated 09.04.2026, the detenue was apprehended on 13.04.2026 and there upon the detenue continues to remain under preventive detention. It is under such circumstances, the present petition was filed on 11.05.2026 alleging that the Detention Order was illegal inasmuch as there was no Page No.# 6/7 subjective satisfaction which could have been arrived at before passing the detention Order. It is also mentioned in the instant petition that there were various grounds taken in the grounds of detention and it could not be known as to which ground influenced the detaining authority to detain the detenue and under such circumstances, when the ground of detention was taken that the detenue was in judicial custody is on the face of it perverse, the subjective satisfaction which has to be the basis for the purpose of issuance of the Detention Order did not survive. 8. This Court have also taken note that pursuant to the filing of the instant petition, notice was issued and affidavit was filed by the detaining authority on 27.05.2026 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the detaining authority was provided with all necessary documents which established that the detenue was a trafficker of NDPS and was likely to indulge in similar prejudicial activities unless prevented from doing so by appropriate order of preventive detention. 9. We have also perused the records which have been produced by Ms. Inaholi, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1,2,3,5,6 and 7. Page No.# 7/7 10. Upon perusal of the said records, we could not find any other materials placed before the Detaining Authority whereby it shows that the detenue was habitual offender under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985. 11. Having perused the materials on record as well as also taking into account that affidavit so filed by the Detaining Authority, we are of the opinion that the detention which was made vide impugned order dated 09.04.2026 cannot be sustained in law inasmuch there is no materials on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction would have arrived at for passing the detention Order under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1988. 12. Consequently, we set aside the Detention Order dated 09.04.2026. 13. We further direct the respondent authorities to release the petitioner forthwith, if the detenue is not required in any other cases. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant