MOHD AYOUB NAJAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition has been thrown to a Detention Order No. DIVCOM"K"/125/2025 dtd. 15/7/2025 ('impugned order' for short) passed by the Divisional Commissioner Kashmir-respondent No.2, vide which the petitioner namely Mohd Ayoub Najar ('the detenue' for short) has been ordered to be detained and lodged in Central Jail Jammu under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, 1988. 1. It is pleaded by the petitioner in his petition that the impugned detention order is legally unsustainable being founded upon stale and irrelevant material; that the petitioner was allegedly involved in two cases registered vide FIR No. 02/2014 under sec. 8/22 NDPS Act and FIR No. 10/2015 under sec. 8/20 NDPS Act, both registered at Police Station Safakadal, whereas the detention order came to be passed in the year 2025 after a lapse of almost a decade; that there exists no live and proximate link between the alleged antecedents of the petitioner and the order of detention; that the detention was recommended on 5/6/2025 however, the detention order was passed on 15/7/2025 without any fresh intervening material or explanation for such delay; that the grounds of detention are vague, indefinite and reflective of non- application of mind; that the detention order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

(2.) Respondents, pursuant to the issuance of notice, have filed their reply/counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the fundamental concept of preventive detention is not intended to punish someone for actions they have already taken but to prevent them from taking such actions in future; that the basis for detention rests on the Executive's satisfaction with a reasonable probability or likelihood of the detenue from committing any of the acts within the meaning of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988; that the detention order is based on a reasonable prediction of future behaviour considering the detainee's past conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances; that there is a direct and immediate link between the detainee's past conduct and current or imminent future activities; that the collective assessment of the grounds for detention has led the detaining authority to reach a subjective satisfaction for placing the petitioner under preventive detention; that the present petition is legally misconceived and is without any merit, therefore deserves to be rejected.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the detention record and considered the same.