Chirag Attri vs U T Of J&K & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 70 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Chirag Attri vs U T Of J&K & Others on 7 May, 2025

Author: Sindhu Sharma

Bench: Sindhu Sharma

 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT JAMMU

                                                             HCP No. 88/2024

                                                   Pronounced on: 07.05.2025

Chirag Attri                                        .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                         Through:-    Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate

                   V/s

U T of J&K & others                                          .....Respondent(s)

                         Through:-    Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG.

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE

                                JUDGMENT

01. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner-Chirag

Attri @ Chetan has challenged his detention order No. PITNDPS 15 of

2024 dated 07.02.2024, issued by respondent No.2, Divisional

Commissioner, Jammu passed under Section 03 of the Prevention of

Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act-1988

read with SRO 247 dated 27.7.1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the

„Act‟).

02. The detention order was passed by the detaining authority

against the petitioner as he is engaged in repeated Illicit Traffic of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances case which poses a

serious threat to the health and welfare of the people, as such, in order

to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of

illicit traffic, it is necessary to detain the petitioner on the basis of the

grounds of detention.

03. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the

impugned detention order on the following grounds: -

a) That the order of detention of the petitioner is

unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law as the same has been

passed in breach of the mandate of law as prescribed by

Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India and this court also,

therefore, the same deserves to be quashed.

b) That the detaining authority has not followed the

constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards as

provided under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and

provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 read with SRO 247

dated 27-07-1988.

c) That the allegations in the detention order are based on the

alleged previous false FIR‟s registered against the petitioner

which cannot be sufficient for issuing the said impugned

order, considering the fact that the said incident has no live

nexus with the present impugned order, as such, there is a

breach of the procedural safeguards as provided under

Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India due to which the

petitioner has been debarred from making an effective and

purposeful representation to the detaining authority and

Government against the impugned order of detention.

d) That the order of grounds of detention which is the basis of

the order detention does not disclose any eminent threat to

the health and welfare of people as the allegation leveled

against the petitioner are purely criminal in nature and

adjudication of same are pending before the competent

court of law.

e) That the detaining authority has not applied its mind while

passing the order of detention as it is passed on the basis of

wrong grounds mentioned in the dossier placed before it by

the SSP Jammu i.e respondent No. 4.

04. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that it is incumbent on

the State to satisfy the Court that the order of detention is legal and in

conformity with the mandatory provisions and strictly in accordance

with constitutional safeguards as provided in Article 22 (c) of the

Constitution of India.

05. Mrs. Monika Kohli,, learned Sr. AAG, has filed the counter

affidavit as well as produced the relevant record.

06. The respondents in the counter submit that the impugned

order is legal and in consonance with the law. The impugned order of

detention does not suffer from any legal infirmity, so as to warrant the

interference of this court in terms of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the dossier in respect

of the petitioner vide No.CRB/2024/Dossier/22/DPOJ dated

01.02.2024 was submitted by the SSP, Jammu to the answering

respondent No. 2 and after carefully examining the dossier and the

relevant records attached with it, it was found imperative to detain the

petitioner under the relevant provisions of PITNDPS Act.

07. It is further submitted by the respondents that all the statutory

requirements and constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and

complied with by the Detaining Authority. The impugned order issued

is legal and valid and the learned counsel for the respondents has further

submitted that the grounds urged in this petition by the petitioner are

misconceived and untenable being without any merit.

08. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also

perused the record.

09. The Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, ordered the detention

of the petitioner after relying on the dossier submitted by the SSP,

Kathua, on the grounds of continuous and repeated involvement of

petitioner in criminal activities as well as narcotic substance cases,

which have remained unchecked. There was every likelihood that he

would expand his illegal trade to other areas, thereby spoiling the youth

of the region and creating law and order problems. The Detaining

Authority also recorded its satisfaction that the ordinary law of land has

failed to deter the petitioner from engaging in illegal trafficking,

therefore, it was imperative to detain him.

10. The right of personal liberty is most precious right,

guaranteed under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental,

inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution. A

person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty, except in accordance

with procedures as established under law and the procedure as laid

down in "Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India", 1978 AIR SC 597, is to

be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person

faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to

imprisonment. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, provided for

detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such

person held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a

competent court. Its aim and object are to save society from activities

that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life

and personal liberty.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the contention

that though the detention order was issued on 07.02.2024, but the same

was executed on 26.05.2024, after a delay of more than three and a half

months. There is no explanation put forth for the delay in execution of

detention warrant. The petitioner has stated that he was available and this

fact has not been rebutted.

12. In "A. Mohammed Farook vs. Jt. Secy. To G.O.I. and

ors", (2000) 2 SCC 360, the Hon‟ble Apex court has held that:

"The only contention before the Court was that of delay in executing the order of detention. In that case, the detention order was passed on 25.02.1999 but the authorities have chosen to execute the detention order only on 06.04.1999 after an inordinate and unreasonable delay of nearly 40 days. In the absence of proper and acceptable reasons for the delay of 40 days in executing the detention order, this Court concluded that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in issuing the detention order dated 25.02.1999 gets vitiated and on this ground quashed the same."

13. Similar view has been expressed in "K.P. M. Basheer V. State of

Karnataka and another", AIR 1992 SC 1353, the Hon‟ble Apex court

has held that:

"...Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the order of detention cannot be sustained since the „live and proximate link‟ between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped on account of the undue

and unreasonable delay in security the appellant/petitioner and detaining him..."

14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is no need to advert to other

grounds raised in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the

Detention Order No. PITNDPS 15 of 2024 dated 07.02.2024, passed by the

Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, under which the petitioner-Chirag Attri @

Chetan, S/o Late Ved Ram, R/o Chak Jaralan, Tehsil Bishnah, District

Jammu, is under detention, is quashed. The respondents are directed to release

the petitioner from the custody forthwith, provided he is not required in any

other case.

15. Detention record be returned to the learned counsel for the

respondents by the Registry forthwith.

(Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU Ved-Secy.

07.05.2025


                    Whether the judgment is speaking         :     Yes/No
                    Whether the judgment is reportable      :      Yes/No