GULCHARAN SINGH Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned in this petition, filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, is an order of detention bearing No.PITNDPS-29 of 2023 dtd. 31/8/2023 ["impugned detention order'] passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu ["the Detaining Authority"] whereby the petitioner has been placed under detention with a view to preventing him from indulging in repeated "illicit trafficking" in narcotics and psychotropic substances.

(2.) The impugned order of detention has been passed by the Detaining Authority in the exercise of power vested in it under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 ["the PITNDPS Act"]. The detention of the petitioner is ordered primarily on the ground that he has been, over the time, consistently engaged in illicit traffic in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances, in that, five FIRs i.e. (i) FIR No.96/2016 under Sec. 8/21/62 NDPS Act, (ii) FIR No.355/2019 under Sec. 8/21/22 NDPS Act, (iii) FIR No.39/2020 under Sec. 8/21/22 NDPS Act, (iv) FIR No. 471/2021 under Sec. 8/21/22 NDPS Act, and FIR No. 66/2023 under Ss. 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act stand registered in Police Station, Reasi, Udhampur, Bagh-e- Bahu, Jammu and Police Station Janipur, Jammu and final reports in respect thereto have been submitted before the competent court of law after investigation.

(3.) On the basis of relevant material supplied by the District Police, the Detaining Authority arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is an incorrigible drug peddler and has been engaged in illicit trade of narcotics since the year 2016. He has been caught in possession of illicit drugs repeatedly and, accordingly, FIRs were registered in the concerned Police Stations. The Detaining Authority was aware that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in all the five cases registered against him but was of the opinion that in case the petitioner is allowed to remain at large and his illicit activities remain unchecked there is every likelihood that the petitioner would expand his illegal trade to other areas of the Union Territory and spoil the life of the youth of the area. It is on the basis of this satisfaction drawn by the Detaining Authority, impugned detention order was passed and the petitioner was taken into preventive custody of the State.