AJAIB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is to orders dtd. 2/5/2025 and 21/7/2025, Annexures P1 and P2 passed by respondent No.2, whereby petitioner has been detained for a period of six months under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'PITNDPS Act').

(2.) Mr. Kulbir Singh Sekhon, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders have been passed as the petitioner has been named as an accused in some criminal cases registered against him for offences under the NDPS Act. He asserts that recovery of contraband has been effected from the petitioner in only three cases and in all the cases, which are pending trial, petitioner has been released on bail. It is his argument that respondent " " authorities do not have any incriminating material to come to the conclusion that petitioner deserves to be detained in anticipation of committing a criminal offence. Reliance has been placed by him upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Singh @ Bhindi Versus State of Haryana and others (LPA-2654-2025, decided on 9/9/2025) to urge that mere involvement in cases under the NDPS Act, is not sufficient to keep the petitioner in custody.

(3.) While opposing the petition, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Additional A.G., Haryana has made a detailed reference to the affidavits filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 as well as respondent No.5. She has referred to the material relied upon by the respondent-authorities and has asserted that the petitioner is a habitual drug trafficker, and he is likely to indulge in nefarious activities.