HC quashes preventive detention of Kathua man under PITNDPS Act

06/03/2026

JAMMU, Mar 5: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Kathua resident under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, with Justice Rajesh Sekhri holding that non-consideration of a material fact and unexplained delay in deciding the detenue's representation rendered the detention order illegal.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Liaqat Ali alias Liaqatu through his mother, the court set aside the detention order dated March 15, 2025, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. The court directed that the detenue be released forthwith, provided he is not required in any other case.
Advocate Usman Salaria appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli represented the Union Territory authorities.
According to the case record, the detention order had been issued on the basis of a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, alleging that the detenue was a habitual drug trafficker involved in four cases under the NDPS Act and continued to engage in illicit drug trafficking despite securing bail in those cases.
The petitioner challenged the detention primarily on the ground that one of the cases relied upon in the dossier had already resulted in his acquittal before the detention order was passed and that the detaining authority had failed to apply its mind to this crucial fact.
The High Court noted that the petitioner had been acquitted on February 21, 2025 in one of the NDPS cases prior to the issuance of the detention order on March 15, 2025. The court observed that this fact was either withheld by the sponsoring authority or ignored by the detaining authority, which amounted to non-application of mind and vitiated the subjective satisfaction required for preventive detention.
Justice Sekhri also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal vs Police Commissioner, which held that suppression or non-consideration of vital material facts affecting the decision of the detaining authority invalidates a detention order.
The court further observed that the detenue had submitted a representation against his detention but the respondents failed to disclose when it was decided or communicated to him. The unexplained delay in dealing with the representation, the court said, violated the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(5), which mandates prompt consideration of a detenue's representation.
Holding that the detention order suffered from legal infirmities and violated constitutional protections, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty