( 2026:HHC:18140 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No.16 of 2026 Decided on: 18.05.2026 Gaurav ....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 C. Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). The present petition has been filed by the petitioner’s wife for seeking issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus and immediate release of the petitioner from District Jail, Solan, District Solan Himachal Pradesh, quashing and setting aside the illegal detention order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), passed under Section 5 of the PIT ND&PS Act, 1988, which was stated to be implemented by the respondents-State on 13.03.2026 which would be clear from Annexure P-2. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The petitioner has thus been detained for a period of three months under the said provisions by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Himachal Pradesh. The primary reason for detention was on account of the fact that there were two FIR’s registered under the NDPS Act against him, the details of which are mentioned as under:- i. FIR No.113/2024 dated 13.08.2024, Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, HP, under Sections 21, 29 of the ND&PS Act, 195, wherein approximately 07.24 grams of heroin/chitta was recovered from him; ii. FIR No.54/2025 dated 17.03.2025, Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, HP, under Sections 21, 29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985, wherein approximately 10.70 grams of heroin/chitta was receovered from him.” 3. Apparently, the same was done on the ground of the proposal dated 07.02.2026, which was received from the Additional Director General of Police, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh routed through the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The ground as such was that the detenue was actively involved in the illegal trade of narcotics and has shown no signs of improvement and narcotics recovered in both the FIR’s were of “intermediate quantity”. On account of taking advantage of the said fact, the petitioner had obtained bail easily and immediately resumed to his narcotrics trafficking. He was stated to be known in the local community as a notorious 3 drug trafficker and in such circumstances, the application of mind as such has been made by the Competent Authority, whereby the right to make representation has been left to the Detaining Authority instead of the Competent Authority who had passed the order which is mandatory under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 4. Another argument which has now been raised is the issue of live-link, as it is stated that the information was being gathered since July, 2025 which would be clear from the reply of the respondents-State itself (Annexure R1-2) and is also mentioned in the check-list of the mandatory documents prepared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Resultantly, the observations were made by the recommending authority that there was a live and proximate link and the involvement of the present petitioner in the cases pertaining to the NDPS Act. 5. As noticed, there was considerable delay from July, 2025 as such to further pursue the said recommendation as the recommendation was received on 07.02.2026 from the Additional Director General of Police, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and then the detention order was passed on 11.03.2026 and implemented on 13.03.2026. 4 6. Accordingly, we find that there is no live and proximate link left between the last FIR, which was lodged on 17.03.2025 and passing of the detention order, after almost a year. Apparently, the petitioner has not indulged in any activity nor there was any FIR lodged for the period of one year and therefore, in the said order of detention, this aspect has not been taken into consideration and can be said to be an order where mind has not been applied which is arbitrary. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the earlier order passed by us in Cr.WP No.31 of 2025, titled Ankush Thakur Vs. The State of HP and Others, decided on 26.02.2026, wherein also, no FIR had been lodged after March, 2024 and the order of detention was passed on 06.12.2025 and we had come to the conclusion that there was no live link and quashed the detention order on the ground that there was a gap of over a period of one and a half years, in passing the detention order. 8. The Apex Court in Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu TR Sec. To Govt. & another, 2011 (4) SCR 740, has held that liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed on the ground of mere suspicion. The relevant paragraph reads as under:- 5 “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 xxxxxxxxx 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 the order of detention on subjective satisfaction. Since clause (3) of Article 22 specifically excludes the applicability of clauses (1) and (2), the detenu is 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.” '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 detenu is 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.” 6 9. It has also been held recently in Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Vs. State of Nagaland and Others, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 502 that preventive detention deprives a person of his/her individual liberties by detaining him/her for a length of time without being tried and convicted of a criminal offence and the prescribed safeguards have to be applied. 10. The principle of live link was laid down by the Apex Court by three Judge Bench in Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura and others (2022) SCC Online SC 1333, in which case the proposal for detention was dated 28.06.2021 and the order was passed on 12.11.2021 and it was held that there was no explanation why it took five months for the detaining authority to pass the order of detention. Resultantly, it has been held that to frustrate the entire proceedings there should be a live and proximity link between the proposal of detention and the purpose of detention having been snapped, it would be prima facie unreasonable, if the order is allowed to sustain. 11. The said principle would also apply in the present case as noticed above, apart from the fact that the perusal of the implementing order dated 11.03.2026 would also go on to show that the petitioner was not informed of his right as such under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India as to where he has to make his representation against the detention order. 7 12. Counsel for the respondents-State has tried to justify while referring to the issue of the check-list of mandatory documents against the detenue that there was purchaser of two vehicles in the name of Smt. Rama Devi of Innova car and Alto car in the name of his father namely Hari Gopal in a short period of two months and therefore, it was an indicator as such that the petitioner was involved. We are not able to subscribe to the said arguments that if a vehicle is purchased by the family members as to how the petitioner is responsible for the said purchase and is to be detained. 13. In Cr.WP No.30 of 2025, titled Sagar Vs. Sate of HP and Others, decided on 09.04.2026, we had also applied the principle of collective punishment, while taking a cue from the judgment of the Apex Court in RE: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, (2025) 5 SCC 1 that for the whims and fancies of the authorities, the detention cannot be done and thus it would be an arbitrary act which cannot be sustained in the absence of any material as such. 14. Action having not been taken against any of the family members and neither any application of mind that whether they were tax-payers and they had the sources to purchase the said vehicles and whether the said vehicles were financed or not, which is also not on the record and, therefore, we cannot but come to the 8 conclusion that the detention order is not sustainable, keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court. 15. It is also pertinent to notice that the brother of the petitioner-Chetan has also been detained vide a similar order of the same date i.e. 11.03.2026 which is a subject matter of challenge in Cr.WP No.17 of 2026, titled Chetan Vs. State of H.P. & others. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that apparently, the detaining authority has not even applied its mind to this aspect that two male family members of the family as such are being detained for a period of three months each and this aspect should have been duly noticed when the orders as such were being passed and moresoever, since one of the FIR in question was common namely FIR No.54/2025 dated 17.03.2025. 16. Resultantly, we allow the present petition and the detention order dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The petitioner be set free in case he is not wanted in any other case. 17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed off accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 18th May, 2026 (Munish Thakur)