AMANDEEP SINGH Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through his mother has filed the present petition for quashing the order of detention bearing No. PITNDPS 09 of 2022 dtd. 5/9/2022 issued by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner was in custody and pursuing his bail application in FIR No. 298/2022 under Sec. 8/21/22 NDPS Act before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua. He was granted bail on 5/12/2022 and then only, the mother of the petitioner was provided with a copy of order of detention and was informed that the petitioner was detained under the Act (supra).

(3.) The petitioner has impugned the order of detention on the ground that the grounds of detention are verbatim account of the dossier prepared by the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 2 has not recorded its subjective satisfaction in respect of the circumstances warranting the detention of petitioner, while passing the order impugned. The grounds of detention, order of detention and dossier were not provided to the petitioner within stipulated time period as prescribed under Sec. 3 of the Act (supra). Moreover, the same were neither read over nor explained to the petitioner in language which the petitioner understands. Because of this, the petitioner could not make a representation before the detaining authority at the earliest. It is stated that it was only on 5/12/2022 that the petitioner was informed that he was detained under the Act (supra). At the time of issuance of order of detention, the petitioner was already in custody in FIR No. 298/2022 under Sec. 8/21/22 NDPS Act of Police Station, Kathua and the respondent No. 2 miserably failed to record compelling reasons for detaining the petitioner under the Act (supra) when the petitioner was already in custody. Earlier on the basis of four FIRs relied upon by the detaining authority, the petitioner was detained in terms of the order of detention bearing No. PSA/100 dtd. 19/2/2020 but the same was quashed by this Court vide order dtd. 31/12/2020 and as such, those four FIRs could not have been made a ground for detaining the petitioner.