SUKALYAN DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the detenue, who has been booked under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, in short PITNDPS Act, by the order under No.15(9)-D/2020 dated 16.06.2020 Anexure-1 to the petition has challenged the said order of detention dated 16.06.2020 on the grounds that, (i) the detenue was not apprised of his right to file representation within a time frame questioning the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorities for such detention. In the case in hand, such satisfaction is founded on vague, irrelevant, non-existent and extraneous factors having no livelink with the objective of detention, (ii) Reference of 3three criminal cases has been made in the order of detention dated 16.06.2020, but there has been no disclosure at what stage those criminal cases have reached. (iii) It is apparent that when the petitioner was to be released on bail, the said order of detention has been issued, which by itself is an encroachment on the legal process, (iv) That apart, it has been asserted by the detenue that the order of detention is poised in complete contrast to Article 22 of the Constitution of India and Section 10 of the PITNDPS Act, 1988.

(2.) Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the detenue has submitted that the report of the Director General of Police, the DGP in short, was not supplied to the detenue but from the order dated 16.06.2020 it appears that the detention order has been passed on the basis of the proposal for detention sent by the DGP. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has categorically relied on the following part of the order of detention:

(3.) Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has submitted that in the grounds of detention also it has been stated that from the report of the DGP, it appeared that the detenue had been implicated in three police cases viz. Jirania PS case No.20220JRN002 dated 09.01.2020, Sidhai P.S. case No.2018SDI125 dated 29.12.2018 and Airport P.S. Case No.2019APR005 dated 16.01.2019. All the cases are commission of the offences relating to the NDPS Act and recovery of cannabis in huge quantity. In the grounds of objection, it has been observed that the detenue is closely associated with the intra/interstate drug rackets and the detenue is engaged in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. His activities are harmful and prejudicial to the society. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the ground No.(iv) is based on the materials relating to the case of Jirania Police Station, but these materials are completely unknown to the detenue. But after analysing those materials, an adverse inference has been drawn against the detenue, even the CDR analysis report has not been placed to the detenue. As such, according to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, the detenue was not only deprived of perusing a copy of the report of the DGP, Tripura and the CDR analysis report, as purportedly made by the Government of Tripura and as such, his representation was not in form, that has infringed the right of the detenue as protected under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.