CHOUDHARY ASIF ALI Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is quashing to detention order No. PITNDPS 06 of 2023 dtd. 15/3/2023 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu under Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 detaining Choudhary Asif Ali, with a view to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of illicit traffic. This order of detention is assailed by the detenu through his brother-Azad Ahmed.

(2.) The detenu has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order on the grounds that (i) the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been supplied to him, thus, infringed his right to make an effective representation; (ii) there is a delay of more than three months in execution of the order dtd. 15/3/2023, thus, the detention is vitiated and the delay in execution of the detention order has deprived the detenu of his right to make an effective representation to the Detaining Authority, which has resulted in an infraction of the rights as guaranteed to the detenu. The detenu was already admitted to bail in FIR registered against him in different Police Stations, and the Detaining Authority, despite having knowledge about the registration of the cases and bail, has not mentioned compelling reasons in the grounds of detention while passing the order of detention. There was no application of mind while detaining the detenu and as such, the same is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Mr. Amit Gupta, learned AAG has filed the counter affidavit and produced the detention record. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which it is submitted by them that the detenu was detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, validly by virtue of detention order dtd. 15/3/2023 issued by the District Magistrate, Divisional Commissioner Srinagar. Detaining Authority has fulfilled all the statutory requirements and Constitutional guarantees as provided to the detenu. The grounds of detention, order of detention as well as entire material relied upon by the Detaining Authority have been communicated to the detenu and he was also informed of his right to make an effective representation against the order of detention. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion and the Advisory Board after considering the material placed before it has held that there is sufficient cause for detaining the detenu, thus, after the opinion, the Government confirmed the order of detention.