IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No. 12 of 2026 Decided on: 20.05.2026 Anil Kumar @ Neelu .…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Mr. Bhanu Verma and Mr. Ritik Prasher, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) In the present case, the petitioner challenges the detention order under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Circumstances Act, (for short ‘PIT NDPS Act’), 1988, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the detention has been ordered on account of three FIRs lodged against the petitioner, the details of which read as under:- “i. In First Information Report No. 13/2015 dated 08.02.2015 at Police Station Ani, District Kullu, HP, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, approximately 7 kg 800 grams of poppy husk was recovered from him. ii. In First Information Report No. 05/2019 dated 08.01.2019 at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, HP, under Sections 18, 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, approximately 48 grams of opium and 67 grams of hashish were recovered from him. iii. In FIR No. 106/2023 dated 02.12.2023 registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, HP under Sections 20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, approximately 194 grams of Charas were recovered from him. 2. The Special Secretary (Home), Government of H.P., has assigned reasons to the effect that the detainee was already convicted in the first case and trial in the remaining two cases was still pending and despite repeated arrests and prosecutions, he had shown no 3 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) signs of reform. It has further been observed that he continued to remain in contact with four separate individuals, who were also involved in FIRs pertaining to the NDPS Act, details of which were given in the order under challenge. 3. Reliance has been placed upon the information supplied to the effect that there were call detail records regarding CDRs etc. showing that the petitioner had visited various border areas of Punjab and Haryana and had maintained frequent telephonic contact with individuals residing in different States. Accordingly, the order of detention was passed for a period of three months and the petitioner was lodged in Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla, H.P. 4. The offer, as such, of filing a representation against the said order was given to be made before the restraining authority, apparently in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The issue stands settled in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 51, wherein it has 4 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) been held that the representation is required to be considered by the authority, which has passed the order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier conviction in FIR No. 13 of 2015, dated 08.02.2015, was on account of the confession made by the accused. While referring to the order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Special Judge-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, it has been pointed out that on account of the convicts having admitted their guilt, they were sentenced to the period already undergone by them and were further directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the commission of an offence under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, pertaining to recovery of 1 Kg 800 grams of poppy husk. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice that the first FIR was registered way back in the year 2015 and the second FIR came to be registered in the year 2019. It has been submitted that there is a considerable gap between the said FIRs and that the last FIR was lodged on 02.12.2023. 5 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) Therefore, the detention order having been passed on 02.03.2026 after a period of over two years, shows lack of application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, as there was no immediate necessity for passing the order of preventive detention. It has also been pointed out that there was no conscious possession of 194 grams of Charas with the petitioner, which would be clear from the reply filed by the State that it was only on account of the confession/statement made by Sandeep Kumar of the main accused that the narcotic substance had been purchased from the petitioner, pursuant to which he came to be arrested in FIR No. 106 of 2023. It is, thus, submitted that the issue would be a matter for trial, whether conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of the confession made by a co-accused. It is thus submitted that the order of the detention suffers from illegality and infirmity and non-application of mind on this score therefore, the same cannot be sustained. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that on account of the repeated involvement of the petitioner in such cases, the order of 6 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) detention came to be passed. Reliance has also been placed upon Annexure R-3/1 to contend that the petitioner had been informed that he could make a representation before the competent authority against the aforesaid detention order. It is further submitted that the Advisory Board, vide order dated 28.04.2026, as such, has noticed and given its opinion, upholding the detention order, but while noticing that there is no recent FIR, however, the Superintendent of Police had relied upon secret source report and CID reports, which suggest his active involvement in drug peddling. The contraband recovered from the detainee being of intermediate quantity and confiscation is from different Districts of Himachal Pradesh and indicated his active involvement in illegal drug trafficking, which led to the order being validated. 8. We are of the considered opinion, that the settled position of law remains that for a period of two years, as such, no other FIR under NDPS came to be lodged against the petitioner and therefore, the detention order having now been passed, cannot be maintained. 7 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) 9. In Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 12 SCC 150, it has been held that a preventive detention order passed was without examining the existence of a live and proximate link between the alleged events and the order of detention would amount to punishment without trial, and that the exceptional powers of preventive detention cannot be permitted to devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of State authority. It has also been held that the two FIRs registered against the detenue were capable of being dealt with in the ordinary course of criminal law. The relevant portion reads as under:- “17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid detention order was passed on grounds which are stale and which could not have been considered as relevant for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu must be detained. The detention order must be based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of a person based on his past conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances. The live and proximate link that must exist between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him must be taken to have been snapped in this case. A detention order which is founded on stale incidents, must be regarded as an order of punishment for a crime, passed without a trial, though purporting to be an order of preventive detention. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has 8 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) done but to prevent him from doing it. See G. Reddeiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.2 , and P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India. 18 to 21 x--------x----------x-----------x-------------x 22. We are of the view, that the detention order in this case is vitiated by taking into account incidents so far back in the past as would have no bearing on the immediate need to detain him without a trial. The satisfaction of the authority is not in respect of the thing in regard to which it is required to be satisfied. Incidents which are stale, cease to have relevance to the subject matter of the enquiry and must be treated as extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute. 23. In this case, we find the authority has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever reach. A detaining authority must be taken to know both, the purpose and the procedure of law. It is no answer to say that the authority was satisfied. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerela and Ors.6, this Court observed, where the authority takes into account stale incidents which have gone by to seed it would be safe to infer that the satisfaction of the authority is not a genuine one. 24 & 25 x--------x----------x-----------x-------------x 26. The influence of the stale incidents in the detention order is too pernicious to be ignored, and the order must therefore go; both on account of being vitiated due to malice in law and for taking into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account.” 10. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mallada K. Sri Ram Vs. State of Telangana and Others, (2023) 13 SCC 537, wherein detention, as such, had been done under the Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 and the High Court had dismissed the petition. The Apex Court was of 9 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) the considered opinion that there was a delay of 5 months of passing the detention order after the registration of the second FIR and it amounted to the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 11. The said view has been followed in Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587, wherein also while relying upon the judgment in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244, it has been held that to unchain the shackles of preventive detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrine in our Constitution, particularly under the “golden triangle” formed by Articles 14,19 & 21, are delinquently enforced. “65. Interference by this Court with orders of detention, routinely issued under the Act, seems to continue unabated. Even after Mallada K Sri Ram (supra), in another decision of fairly recent origin in the case of Shaik Nazneen vs. The State of Telangana23, this Court set aside the impugned order of detention dated 28th October, 2021 holding that seeking shelter under preventive detention law was not the proper remedy. 66. It requires no serious debate that preventive detention, conceived as an extraordinary measure by the framers of our Constitution, has been rendered ordinary with its reckless invocation over the years as if it were available for use even in the ordinary course of proceedings. To unchain 2022 SCC OnLine SC 424 Crl. Appeal No.908 of 2022, dated 22nd June 2023 the shackles of preventive 10 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) detention, it is important that the safeguards enshrined in our Constitution, particularly under the ‘golden triangle’ formed by Articles 14, 19 and 21, are diligently enforced.” 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has apparently tried to defend the State on the basis of the judgment passed in G. Reddeiah Vs. Government of Himachal Pradesh and Another (2012) 2 SCC 389. Perusal of the said judgment would go on to show that the detenue therein was involved in forest offences and as many as eight FIRs had been registered against him pertaining to smuggling of red sanders wood and theft of forest wealth, thereby indicating habitual involvement in such illegal activities. Therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 13. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the settled principles of law, the non-application of mind with regard to the issue of proximate link with the failure to furnish the proper information to the petitioner enabling him to make representation against the detention order under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11 ( 2026:HHC:18723 ) 14. In view of above, we have no option but to quash the detention order dated 02.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) along with consequential orders and direct that the petitioner be set free forthwith immediately. 15. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C.Negi) Judge 20th May, 2026 (sushma)