MOHAMMAD AMIN MALIK Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act of 1988"), has, vide order No.DIVCOM-"K"/334/2022 dtd. 28/12/2022, ordered preventive detention of Mohd Amin Malik @ Amin Malik (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), in order to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of the Act of 1988.

(2.) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the impugned detention order has been challenged by the petitioner contending that the impugned detention order has been passed without application of mind as the grounds of detention are vague, non-existent and stale on which no prudent man can make a representation against such allegations. It has been further contended that the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not been provided to the petitioner. It has been further urged that there has been non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order as the detenue was already admitted to bail in the FIR, mention whereof has been made in the grounds of detention.

(3.) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that the detenue has been covertly dealing in and supplying narcotics/liquor. The detenue has been operating a major racket of drug consignments/other narcotic substances for delivery to different areas. It has been further contended that the activities of the petitioner have posed a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of the area. It is pleaded that the detention order and grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same was read over and explained to him. That the grounds urged by the petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and without any merit and that all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order. To substantiate their stand taken in the counter affidavit, the respondents have produced the detention record.