DEEPAK KUMAR @ BINNI GUJJAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing orders/report, dtd. 12/3/2025 and 28/5/2025, Annexures P-4 and P-7, respectively, passed by respondent-authorities, whereby he has been detained for a period of one year under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PITNDPS Act"). After quashing the orders, petitioner has sought his release from imprisonment.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is a substantial delay in issuing of the detention order. It is his contention that a proposal to detain petitioner was initiated on 9/2/2025 and impugned detention order has been passed on 12/3/2025, Annexure P-4. Counsel has assailed the detention orders on the ground that vital material has been withheld from the detaining authority. He asserts that petitioner has been allegedly found to be involved in four criminal cases lodged for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act"), but the initiating authority concealed that he stands acquitted in one of the cases. Counsel has made a reference to judgment dtd. 4/2/2025, Annexure P-9, passed by Special Court, Hoshiarpur, to emphasize that petitioner has been given a clean chit in FIR No.149, dtd. 11/10/2020, registered for offences under Sec. 21 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. It is also his argument that the last criminal case under NDPS Act was registered against petitioner on 1/3/2021 and detaining authority has relied upon stale material to illegally imprison him. He asserts that petitioner was already in custody in some other criminal case and there was no imperative need to pass the detention order. Reliance has been placed by him upon

(3.) Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a reply by way of affidavit of Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home Affairs. State counsel has argued that the proposal for detaining petitioner was initiated on 9/2/2025, Annexure R-1, as he was found indulging in illegal activities while he was on parole. He submits that there is an intelligence input against petitioner, which was brought to the notice of the competent authority, who passed the detention order, Annexure P-4. He states that the grounds of detention were supplied to petitioner on 12/3/2025, both in English and Punjabi, a language with which he is conversant. Counsel states that petitioner submitted a representation and was given a personal hearing by the Advisory Board and the detention order was confirmed on 14/15/7/2025, Annexure R-13, on basis of report, Annexure P-7. It is his argument that the detention order has been passed within five weeks of the commencement of proposal and there is no delay on the part of respondents. He asserts that the order is in conformity with the provisions of the PITNDPS Act and cannot be quashed on a technical ground. Strength has been drawn by him upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Versus Umrani Swaminathan Laxman (1997) 11 SCC 426. State counsel contends that petitioner is a hardened criminal and has 32 criminal cases registered against him, out of which four cases are under the NDPS Act. State counsel asserts the pendency of criminal proceedings under the NDPS Act and incriminating material in possession of respondents is sufficient for the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that petitioner is likely to indulge in the trade of banned substance. It has been emphasized that impugned orders have been passed to restrain petitioner from carrying out activities, which are prejudicial to the health and welfare of the public. He asserts that preventive action is precautionary and not punitive in nature. Reliance has been placed by him upon Abdul Habib Versus U.T. of J&K and others, . It has also been pointed out by the State counsel that petitioner is undergoing sentence as he has been convicted for murder and an application for suspension of sentence filed by him has recently been rejected by this Court.