SAGEER AHMAD Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order of detention bearing No.DIVCOM- 'K"/25/2023 dtd. 29/3/2023 whereby the petitioner has been detained under Sec. (3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, the petitioner has impugned the order of detention on the ground that the detaining authority i.e. the respondent No. 2 has not shown his awareness in respect of grant of bail to the petitioner by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla. Further no compelling reasons have been assigned by the respondent No. 2 while issuing the order of detention. It is further urged that the material relied upon by the respondent No. 2 has not been provided to the petitioner.

(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the petitioner was apprehended in FIR No. 07/2023 under Sec. 8/20 of NDPS Act of Police Station Kreeri on 8/2/2023 by the Police post Wagoora at Wazir Crossing, where naka was laid. 65 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from the petitioner and as per the FSL report, the contraband turned out to be\ 'Ganja'. As the activities of the petitioner were posing serious threat to the health and welfare of the area, the petitioner was ordered to be detained under the Act (supra). It is further stated that all the statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled by the detaining authority by taking into consideration the object of preventive detention. The detention warrant was executed and the petitioner was handed over to the Superintendent, Central Jail Kotbalwal Jammu for lodgment. The contents of the grounds of detention were read over and explained to the detenue in the language which he understands fully. The detenue was also informed that he has a right to make a representation to the government against the detention order. The petitioner was also furnished with copies of the order of detention and the grounds of detention.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the detaining authority has passed the order without demonstrating its awareness with regard to the grant of bail in FIR No. 07/2023. He has further submitted that the material relied upon by the detaining authority was not provided to the petitioner which disabled him to make an effective representation before the respondent No. 2 and also to the Government.