RAJU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed inter-alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned orders dtd. 5/5/2025 and 29/7/2025, Annexures P-3 and P-7, respectively, passed by the Home Department, Haryana by which petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PITNDPS Act") for a period of six months. Another prayer has been made for grant of compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,00,000.00 per month during the period he remained illegally detained.

(2.) Mr. Nagar Singh, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is running a grocery store and has been falsely implicated in six criminal cases on the allegation that non-commercial quantity, ganja, was recovered from his possession. He urges that the petitioner has been granted bail in all the cases and he is adhering to the conditions imposed upon him by the Court while granting bail. Counsel points out that the prosecution had filed an application for cancellation of bail in one of the cases, which has been dismissed vide order dtd. 2/5/2025, Annexure P-2. Counsel asserts that instead of assailing the aforesaid order, respondent-authorities passed impugned order, Annexure P-3, detaining the petitioner, which has been confirmed vide impugned order, Annexure P-7. Counsel has argued that the orders have been passed by the respondent-authorities without any application of mind as there is no allegation of alleged recovery of heroin from petitioner in any FIR. He has placed reliance upon Jahanara Bibi @ Jahanara Begam @ Jahanara Mondal @ Janu Versus Union of India and others, Law Finder ID # 2768448.

(3.) Writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing separate replies on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 as well as respondent No.5. State counsel has argued that petitioner is a habitual drug trafficker and is involved in six criminal cases as he was found to be in illegal possession of narcotic substance. While referring to the details of the cases registered against the petitioner, she asserts that recovery of ganja has been effected from the person of the petitioner and even his brother has been named as an accused in an FIR registered for offence under the NDPS Act. State counsel points out that after being released on bail, petitioner has gone back to the notorious trade and the impugned orders have been passed in order to prevent him from indulging in the trade of narcotics. She has stated that petitioner has been wrongly described to be involved in the trade of heroin and there is a clerical error in the detention order.