KHALEEQ AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preventive detention of the detenu, ordered by the respondent no.2 (Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir) in exercise of the powers vested in him under Sec. 3 of the J&K Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for brevity "PITNDPS"), is the subject matter of challenge in this petition for habeas corpus. Before taking note of the grounds of challenge taken in this petition to assail the impugned order, it would be appropriate to give brief resume of the activities of the petitioner, which have led him to preventive detention. As is born out from the grounds of detention served on the detenu, he is a habitual indulgent in the trade of narcotics and psychotropic substances. On 22 nd January 2017, the detenu along with his associate was apprehended by a police party of police post Taad at Dalair post opposite Chatkadi. During search, brown sugar (Heroin) weighing 01 kilogram was recovered from his possession. In the result, FIR no.04/2017 under Sec. 8/20 NDPS Act, was registered in the police station Karnah against the detenu. Although it is not coming out from the grounds of detention as to what happened in the aforesaid FIR and how the detenu came out of the police custody, yet on 25/6/2018, he was once again apprehended and was found to be in possession of 140 grams of Heroin. Another FIR, being FIR no.37/2018 under Sec. 8/21 NDPS Act, came to be registered in police station Karnah. The detaining authority after arriving at a satisfaction that the detenu is an incorrigible drug peddler, operating in an organised and well-planned manner and thereby posing serious threat to the life and health of the people, particularly younger generation and with a view to prevent the detenu from further committing the offence(s) under NDPS Act, passed the order of detention bearing no.DIVCOM-"K"/67/2018 dtd. 4/8/2018, impugned in this petition.

(2.) The order of detention is assailed primarily on the following points:

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.