MANOJ Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against order of detention dtd. 29/11/2021 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under sec. 3 (2) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short "NDPS Act") by detaining the petitioner - detenu under the powers conferred under Sec. 3(1) of the NDPS Act.

(2.) Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya assisted by the learned advocate Mr.Kirit Chaudhari for the detenue and learned AGP Ms.Moxa Thakkar for the respondent State and perused the materials placed on record.

(3.) Learned senior advocate Mr.Asim Pandya for the detenu has vehemently submitted that the detenu was arrested in connection with the offence registered under the NDPS Act solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. It is submitted that the detenu is holding a Medical License and a Medical Store. He has submitted that the detenu was released on anticipatory bail by this Court, considering the facts that there was no connecting materials available against the detenu for the alleged offence under the NDPS Act. He has further submitted that the alleged offence is a solitary offence and the offence alleged against the detenu is regarding selling of cough syrup in huge quantity to the other accused. He has submitted that the documents supplied to the detenu is not legible one and no proper document was supplied to the detenu. He has also vehemently submitted that the provisions contained in the prevention of Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in NDPS Act has not been followed. He has also submitted that the FIR was filed on 4/10/2020 and the detention order has been passed on 29/11/2021. He has also submitted that there is no subjective satisfaction of the authority. He has also submitted that since insufficient material was was found by this Court, this Court has enlarged the detenu on anticipatory bail. He has submitted that the entire act is technical one and therefore it needs to be strictly interpreted. He has also submitted that there is no liveline between the alleged offence with the detenu. He has also submitted that this is not a case of affecting the public order. He has submitted that the preventive detention must fall within the four corners of Article 21 read with Article 22 and the Statute in question. He has submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by the detaining authority is merit less and since there is no strict compliance with the provisions of the act in question, the detention order itself is illegal ab initio. He has prayed to allow the petition. He has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court dtd. 31/8/2020 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.454 of 2020 in Special Civil Application No.8091 of 2020 in case of Vijay alias Ballu Bharatbhai Ramanbhai Patani (Kaptiywala) V.s State of Gujarat. He has relied upon the following decisions:-