Makhan Din v. Principal Secretary to Government Home Department, Jammu and Others

JUDGMENT

¶01Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.

¶02Perused the writ pleadings.

¶03The detention record produced also scanned thoroughly.

¶04The petitioner came forward with the present writ petition filed on 03.11.2025, being aggrieved of his preventive detention custody inflicted upon him by an order No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short "PIT NDPS Act, 1988") read with SRO 247 dated 27.07.1988 upon finding the petitioner's alleged reported activities to be falling within the mischief of section 3 of PIT NDPS Act, 1988.

¶05The petitioner came to be taken into custody on

27.09.2025 and confined to the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.

¶06The case for preventive detention of the petitioner was put into process by the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur, who vide his letter No. Conf./PITNDPS/536-39 dated

15.07.2025 submitted a dossier of alleged state of activities of the

petitioner reckoning which the petitioner was held to be a case for suffering preventive detention under PIT NDPS Act, 1988.

¶07In his dossier, the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur exhibited the petitioner's criminal and bad antecedents by reference to FIR No. 188/2024 under section 8/21/22 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of the Police Station Chenani followed by four Daily-Diary Entries made from

05.02.2025 to 19.06.2025 all by the Police Station Chenani.

¶08In the dossier, the fact of release of the petitioner on bail by reference to FIR No. 188/2024 also came to be mentioned.

¶09Acting on said dossier, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu felt persuaded that a case was made out to order the preventive detention of the petitioner and, thus, formulated the grounds of detention to hold that on the basis of the reported state of activities of the petitioner, he deserves to suffer preventive detention and, accordingly, passed the detention order No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025.

¶10The petitioner has come assailing the detention on number of grounds as set out in para 16 (a) to (l).

¶11Highlight ground of challenge is the fact that before service of the dossier from the end of the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur to the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Udhampur by virtue of communication No. Conf./PITNDPS/536-39 dated

15.07.2025, the Prosecution had solicited rejection of the petitioner's bail granted in FIR No. 188/2024 by an application made on 03.02.2025 before the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge under NDPS Act), Udhampur which came to be rejected by virtue of an order dated 05.04.2025.

¶12In the entire dossier, there is not even a whisper of any such exercise undertaken for seeking cancellation of the bail in favour of the petitioner. Thus, when by the time of passing of order dated 05.04.2025, the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur was yet to frame his dossier against the petitioner but still omitted to bear mention of such an important aspect related to suffering rejection of cancellation of bail qua the accused, then

obviously the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu was not fully fed with the facts.

¶13While on one hand cancellation of bail did not succeed but on other hand the petitioner came to be subjected to preventive detention custody is a situation which is antithetical to each other.

¶14In fact, from the perusal of detention record produced for the inspection of this Court, this Court finds that the detention record bears an application No. 142/S-1/PSC dated 31.01.2025 moved for the purpose of cancellation of bail but still said aspect was not made a mention in the dossier is a pointer to the fact that the respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur did not want to highlight the aspect that exercise for seeking cancellation of bail has resulted in failure.

¶15In the light of the aforesaid serious lacuna attending the processing of the case against the petitioner for his preventive detention, this Court finds that the preventive detention imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed.

¶16The detention order No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025 read with confirmation order No. Home-PB-V/1951 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty with immediate effect by the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

¶17Disposed of.

¶18Detention record to be returned back to the counsel representing the respondents.

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU

03.06.2026

Muneesh

Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No

Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on : 23.04.2026 Pronounced on : 03.06.2026. Uploaded on : 04.06.2026 Makhan Din, Age 45 years, S/o Sh. Hakam Din alias Hukam Din, R/o Narsoo, Tehsil Chenani, District Udhampur at present lodged Central Jail, Kotbalwal, Jammu. …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajnesh Singh Parihar, Advocate Vs 1. Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur. 4. Superintendent, Central Jail, Kotbalwal, Jammu. .…. Respondents Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE