2026:HHC:15987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.WP No. 19 of 2026 Date of decision: 11.05.2026. Raj Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & 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. Vijay Thakur, Advocate, for Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the detention order dated 19.02.2026 (Annexure P-2), wherein, while exercising the powers under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PIT ND&PS) Act, 1988, the petitioner was detained for a period of three months. The ground as such for his detention is his involvement in two FIRs, the details of which are given as under:- 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- “i) At Police Station, Hamirpur, Police District Dehra, H.P. vide First Information Report No. 07/2025 dated 15.01.2025, approximately 490 grams of charas was recovered from him under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. ii) At Police Station, Dadasiba, Police District Dehra, H.P. vide First Information Report No. 08/2025 dated 31.08.2025, approximately 363 grams of charas was recovered from him under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.” 2. The reasoning as such in the order was that the quantity recovered from the petitioner demonstrates his deep involvement and that he is major distributor and on account of the fact that he has been released on bail on 01.04.2025 in the first case, whereas in the second case, he was released on bail on 07.11.2025 and in such circumstances, the order has been passed. A perusal of the said order would go on to show that the representation had to be made to the detaining authority and in the reply filed by the State, it has been mentioned that the provisions of Article 22 (5), as statutorily embedded in Section 3 (3) of the Act, has been complied and the -3- petitioner has been informed to submit the representation to the detaining authority/State Government. 3. We are of the considered opinion that there is a technical violation as such since it has been crystal clear that the representation has to be moved before the authority, which had passed the order, in view of law settled on the said issue time and again and lastly in Cr.WP No. 30 of 2025, titled Sagar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 9.4.2026, while following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 4 SCC 51. The said judgment as such specifies that 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 and thereby held that immediate relief could be granted by the person who had passed the order without obligating to make reference to the Advisory Board. 4. In such circumstances, the provisions of law have been violated as the order does not specify in -4- categorical terms where the right is to be exercised and we are of the considered opinion that the person who has been detained has a right under law for grant of quashing of the detention order. 5. We are informed that the petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2026. Resultantly, we quash the detention order dated 19.02.2026 along with consequential orders and direct that the petitioner be set free forthwith, if not involved in any other case. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 11th May, 2026 (kck)