Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Farhat Beguum vs Ut Of J&K & Anr on 30 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 08.05.2025
Pronounced on: 30.05.2025
HCP No.254/2024
FARHAT BEGUUM ...Petitioner(s)
Through: - Mr. Tuba Manzoor, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K & ANR. ...Respondent(s)
Through: - Mr. Zahid Qais Noor, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as to "the Act of
1988"), has, vide order No.DIVCOM-"K"/81/2024 dated 18.04.2024,
ordered preventive detention of Farhat Begum @ Fancy (hereinafter
referred to as the detenue), in order to prevent him from committing
any of the acts within the meaning of the Act of 1988.
2) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the impugned
detention order has been challenged by the petitioner contending that
the procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant
case, inasmuch as whole of the material has not been provided to the
petitioner. It has been further urged that there has been non-application
of mind on the part of detaining authority while passing the impugned
detention order as the detenue was already admitted to bail in the FIR,
mention whereof has not been made in the grounds of detention but the
said fact is not mentioned in the grounds of detention.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended that
the detenue is an active member of large drug mafia who is relentlessly
involved in drug trafficking not only in the local area but is involved in
such illegal activities at the district level as well. It has been further
contended that the detenue was supplying drugs to the gullible youth of
the area thereby exposing them to different kinds of immoral, illegal
and criminal tendencies. It has been submitted that the detenue has
adopted the drug trafficking as his regular source of earning and he has
been motivating and influencing the young minds towards drug
consumption. It has been contended that the detenue was involved in
case FIR No.72/2024 for offences under Section 8/21 NDPS Act
registered with Police Station, Boniyar. It has been further contended
that with a view to prevent the detenue from committing any offence
under the provisions of the Act of 1988, his detention was ordered in
terms of the impugned order. It is pleaded that whole of the material
that formed basis of the grounds of detention has been furnished to the
detenue and the same was read over and explained to him. It has been
averred that the impugned detention order has been passed after
adhering to all legal, statutory requirements and constitutional
guarantees.
4) Despite opportunities, the respondents have not produced the
detention record.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of
the impugned order, projected various grounds but his main thrust
during the course of arguments, was on the ground that whole of the
material that formed basis of the grounds of detention has not been
6) The respondents have not brought on record anything that would
suggest that the material relied upon by the detaining authority and
transmitted to him by the concerned sponsoring agency has been
furnished to the petitioner. Obviously, the petitioner has been hampered
by non-supply of the material in making an effective representation
against his detention. Thus, vital safeguards against arbitrary use of law
of preventive detention have been observed in breach by the
respondents in this case rendering the impugned order of detention
unsustainable in law. Furnishing of whole of the material is a necessary
requirement for enabling the detenue to make an effective
representation against the order of detention. I am supported in my
aforesaid view by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sophia
Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra & ors (AIR 1999 SC
3051), Thahira Haris etc. etc. Vs. Government of Karnataka & Ors
(AIR 2009 SC 2184) and Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti alias Mohd.
Akhtar Hussain alias Kandar Ahmad Wagher alias Iqbal alias
Gulam Vs. State of Gujarat and others", (1982) 3 SCC 440.
7) For the afore-stated reasons, the petition is allowed and the
impugned detention order is quashed. The respondents are directed to
release the petitioner from the preventive custody forthwith, provided
he is not required in connection with any other case.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar
30.05.2025
"Bhat Altaf-Secretary"
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
