Multiple cases of drug trafficking sufficient ground for preventive detention, rules HC
Upholds detention under PITNDPS Act of a person caught with drugs on five occasions
Srinagar: The High Court of J&K & Ladakh has ruled that registration of multiple cases for possessing and trafficking small quantities of narcotics is sufficient grounds to put a person in preventive detention.
The court while dismissing a petition under habeas corpus by one Gulcharan Singh of Udhampur ruled “registration of five cases in a row and the propensity of the petitioner to repeatedly indulge in illicit traffic of small quantity of a contraband which fetches highest price in international market was material good enough to invoke Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act.”
Dismissing the contention of the 40-years-old petitioner that the detaining authority (Divisional Commissioner Jammu), had not applied his mind and had infringed up on his legal and constitutional rights, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that “the detaining authority, applied its mind and reached subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is an incorrigible drug peddler and would not be deterred by the ordinary law of the land, therefore, it is imperative to place him under preventive detention with a view to preventing him from indulging in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.”
Singh was detained under the PITNDPS Act after he was caught with small amounts of heroin and other drugs on five different occasions since 2016. While he was granted bail in each instance, the authorities argued that the repetitive nature of these offenses pointed towards a deeper problem – Singh’s propensity for indulging in the illicit drug trade and hence his preventive detention under the Act.
The official respondents defending Singh’s detention pleaded that he was involved in drug trafficking and was arrested multiple times but was enlarged to bail every time. His preventive detention is necessary to curb his activities and protect public health and safety.
Justice Kumar observed that the grounds of detention clearly reflect proper application of mind by the detaining authority to all aspects of the matter and in particular the propensity of the petitioner in indulging in illicit trade of illicit drugs and narcotics.
He said having regard to the petitioner’s past conduct and his continuous involvement in the illicit traffic without being deterred by registration of cases against him, the police authorities brought the entire material to the notice of the detaining authority.
The relevant material in the shape of FIRs registered against the petitioner was before the detaining authority, on the basis whereof the officer reached his subjective satisfaction that the remaining of the petitioner at large was detrimental to the health and welfare of the public in general and youth in particular, he said.
The bench held that the officer was well aware about the propensity of the petitioner in the engagement in illicit traffic of drugs and narcotics, which was well exhibited by his conduct of indulging in illicit traffic every time he came out on bail.
It is true that the police had not placed any material before the detaining authority to indicate that any effort was made by the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail or challenge the orders of bail before the higher forums, however, in the given facts and circumstances, this omission on part of the police would not vitiate the detention, said the court.
