Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Pardeep Dubey vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 17 October, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. HCP No. 102/2025
Reserved on : 09.10.2025
Pronounced on : 17.10.2025
Uploaded on :. 17.10.2025
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced
Pardeep Dubey, S/o Sh. Subhash Chander Dubey
R/o Village Kanyari, Janglote, Tehsil & District Kathua,
A/P Detenu lodged in District JailUdhampur
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through:-Mr.V.Bhushan Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Aggarwal, Advocate
V/s
1.Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, through Principal Secretary
to Government of Jammu & Kashmir Home Department, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Kathua.
4. Station House Officer, Police Station Kathua.
....Respondent(s)
Through:- Ms. Sagira Jaffar, assisting counsel to
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The Order No. PITNDPS No. 04 of2025 dated 19.02.2025, issued
by respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner Jammu, under the
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act 1988,vide which detenu, namely, Pardeep Dubey, S/o
Sh. Subhash Chander Dubey, R/o Village Kanyari, Janglote, Tehsil &
District Kathua,has been detained at District Jail Udhampur, has been
challenged in this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is under
illegal detention pursuant to an order impugned based on two FIRs No.
408/2022 & 29/2024, both of which resulted in bail due to procedural
lapses. The detenu was picked up by police on 19.02.2025 without any
formal arrest, and his whereabouts remained unknown until April 2025,
when he was located in District Jail Udhampur under preventive
detention. It is stated that the grounds of detention are based solely on
pending cases and a DDR No. 17 dated 29.01.2025. No fresh or
compelling material justifying preventive detention was presented. The
detenu was supplied illegible, photocopied documents in English and
Urdu, which he could not understand, thereby violating Article 22(5) of
the Constitution and rendering his right to make an effective
representation illusory. A representation was filed by the petitioner on
23.06.2025, but neither was it decided nor was the matter referred to the
Advisory Board within the stipulated time, violating mandatory
procedural safeguards under the Constitution and the PITNDPS Act.
3. The impugned order of detention has been challenged precisely
on the following grounds:
(i) That the petitioner has been detained based on two FIRs being FIR No.
408/2022 dated 22.10.2022 under the NDPS Act, with challan filed on
20.12.2022, pending trial and FIR No. 29/2024, with challan filed and
trial pending. In both cases, bail has been granted due to procedural
lapses. No other case is pending investigation or trial against the
petitioner;
(ii) That there is no record under Sections 109 or 110 Cr.P.C., nor is there
any history of surveillance or proceedings indicating that the petitioner
poses a threat to public peace or law and order;
(iii) That the detention is based solely on an unspecified and unsubstantiated
General Diary (GD) entry, without any supporting material or credible
evidence, violating the petitioner's fundamental rights;
(iv) That the petitioner's representation seeking reference to the Advisory
Board under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has not been considered,
denying him the constitutional safeguard of an impartial review;
(v) That the alleged dossier consisting of 80 pages was not formally served
to the petitioner. It was handed over informally by a jail staff member
without being read out or explained in a language understood by the
petitioner, who is poorly educated and unable to comprehend the
contents;
(vi) That except for pages 1-14, the remaining documents are illegible
photocopies of challans and annexures already part of court proceedings,
thereby prejudicing the petitioner's ability to make an effective
representation;
(vii) That the detention order is worded in a mechanical, ritualistic manner,
reflecting a lack of independent application of mind by the detaining
authority;
(viii) That there is no recorded satisfaction by Respondent No. 2 that ordinary
law has failed or is insufficient to prevent the petitioner's alleged
activities, which is a precondition for invoking preventive detention;
4. Respondents have filed affidavit stating herein that the petitioner
has raised questions of fact which are not adjudicable by way of this writ
petition. The petitioner filed a representation to the Government, Home
Department, J&K for revocation of the detention order, a copy of which
was endorsed to Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 forwarded the
representation to the Home Department for consideration, which was
examined by Respondent No. 1 and found devoid of merit.
5. It is also stated by respondents that dossier concerning
petitioner/detenu (No. Pros/PITNDPS/6086-92/DPO dated 31.01.2025),
submitted by SSP, Kathua, to Respondent No. 2, was carefully examined
along with relevant records. It was deemed necessary to detain the detenu
under the provisions of the PITNDPS Act. At the time of executing the
detention order, the detaining officer provided the petitioner the detention
order, grounds of detention (total 88 pages), and explained the contents in
Dogri/Hindi, the language understood by the petitioner. The petitioner
was informed of his right to make a representation before the Government
(Home Department) and the detaining authority.
6. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a representation to
Respondent No.1, with a copy endorsed to Respondent No. 2. The same
was forwarded to Respondent No.1 for appropriate action and was
rejected on merits.
7. The respondents further contend that after being granted bail, the
petitioner was again involved in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs, posing
a serious threat to public order and public health. The detention order
issued by Respondent No.2 was confirmed by the Home Department vide
Order No. Home/PB-V/458 of 2025 dated 17.03.2025, following the
opinion of the Advisory Board dated 06.03.2025.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on
record, including the detention record made available by the learned
counsel for the respondents.
9. First and foremost, perusal of detention record produced by counsel
for respondents would reveal that the procedural safeguards as guaranteed
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India have been followed and
complied with by respondents inasmuch as they have furnished all the
material to detenu to enable him to make an effective representation
against his detention. In such circumstances, impugned order of detention
does notcall for any interference.
10. Grounds of detention give details of FIRs which had been
registeredagainst him and which reflect habituality of detenu in indulging
in activitieswhich have direct impact on the youth of our Nation.
11. This Court in LPA No. 55/2023 titled Anil Shurma v/s UT of I&K
&Ors, decided on 16.08.2023, while upholding the detention order issued
bythe detaining authority observed as under:
"The instant case relates to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs
andpsychotropic substances. The drug problem is a serious threat to
publichealth, economy and growth of humanity. Our global
community islacing serious consequences of drug abuse and it
undermines the socio-economic and political stability and
sustainable development. Besides, italso distorts the health and
fabric of the society and it is considered to bethe originator for
petty offences as well as heinous crimes like smuggling& arms &
ammunition and money laundering. The involvement ofvarious
terrorist groups and syndicates in drug trafficking leads to threatto
the national security and sovereignty of States by the way ofNarco-
terrorism. The drug trafficking and abuse has continued
itssignificant toll on valuable human lives and productive years of
manypersons around the globe. With the growth and development
of worldeconomy, drug traffickers are also seamlessly trafficking
various type ofdrugs from one corner to other ensuring the
availability of thecontrabands for vulnerable segment of the society
who fall into the trapof drug peddlers and traffickers. Due to India's
close proximity withmajor opium growing areas of the region,
India is facing serious menaceof drug trafficking and as a spill-over
effect, drug abuse especiallyamong the youth is a matter of concern
for us.
In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clearly disclosed that it
isnot the number of acts that are to be determined for detention of
anindividual, but it is impact of the act which is material and
determinative.In the instant case the act of detenue relates to drug
trafficking, which hasposed serious threat apart from health and
welfare of the people, to youthand most particularly unemployed
youth, to indulge in such acts,ramifications thereof would be
irreversible and unimaginable.Appellant/writ petitioner has not
been able to convincingly point out theviolation of any statutory or
constitutional provisions."
12. Further this Court in LPA No. 1212023 titled Jahangir Ahmad
Darv/s UT of J&K and orsdecided on 12.02.2024 (Srinagar Bench) in
Para 17held as under:
"17. Having regard to the geopolitical location of the UT ofJammu
and Kashmir bordering hostile neighbouring countries which have
been pushing drugs to this part of the country notonly for illegal
trade but also use the proceeds thereof in thesubsistence of cross
border terrorism, so the menace of drugsin this part of the country
has to seriously looked into havingits wide ramification as
smuggling and trade of narcotics willnot only destabilize the
economy of the area but shall also bedetrimental to the national
interest if the proceeds of the illegaltrade are used to sustain
terrorism."
13. Perusal of detention record particularly grounds of detention reveal
that detenu is involved in drug trafficking which pose a serious threat to
the youth of this part of the country and the proceeds being used to sustain
the terrorism prevalent in this part of the country.
14. Perusal of the record reveals that detenu has been informed to make
representation before the Government as well as detaining authority. In
examining the question whether the ordinary laws of the land would have
sufficed, and whether recourse to preventive detention was unnecessary, it
must be borne in mind that the compulsions of the primordial need to
maintain order in society without which the enjoyment of all rights,
including the right to personal liberty of citizens, would lose their
meaning, provide the justification for the laws of preventive detention.
These Laws suggest that an individual's conduct, prejudicial to
maintenance of public order, security of State, preservation of forest
wealth, preventing a person from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances, provides grounds for satisfaction for a
reasonable assessment of possible future manifestations of similar
propensities on the part of the offender. The object of the law of
preventive detention is not punitive, but is only preventive. In preventive
detention no offence is to be proved nor is any charge formulated. The
justification of such detention is suspicion and reasonability.
15. The essential concept of preventive detention is that detention of a
person is not to punish him for something he has done, but to prevent him
from doing it. Its basis is the satisfaction of the Executive of a reasonable
probability of detenu acting in a manner similar to his past acts, and
preventing him by detention from so doing. Preventive detention, an
anticipatory measure, is resorted to when the executive is convinced that
such detention is necessary to prevent a person detained from acting in a
manner prejudicial to certain objects which are specified by the law. In
preventive detention no offence is proved, and justification of such
detention is suspicion or reasonable probability. The order of detention is
based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a person based
on his past conduct in the light of surrounding circumstances. The power
of preventive detention is exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or
may not relate to an offence. It does not overlap with the prosecution even
if it relies on certain facts for which prosecution may be, or may have
been, launched. An order of preventive detention may be made before or
during prosecution. It may be made with or without prosecution and in
anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of
prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention. An order of
preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution.
16. A six Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court way back in
the year 1951, in the case of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar
Vaidya, AIR 1951 SC 157, while looking into the scope subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority has held that the same is
extremely limited and that the Court, while examining the material, which
is made basis of subjective satisfaction of detaining authority, would not
act as a court of appeal and find fault with satisfaction on the ground that
on the basis of the material before detaining authority, another view was
possible. Such being the scope of enquiry in this field, and the contention
of counsel for petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. While going
through the grounds of detention and dossier, I do not find that grounds of
detention are ditto copy of dossier supplied by sponsoring authority. As is
evident from the detention record, the material has been supplied to
detenu and all this material was before detaining authority when it arrived
at subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are such, which
would entail the preventive detention under the Act.
17. It may be mentioned here that the powers of preventive detention
under the Act of 1988, are in addition to those contained in the Criminal
Procedure Code, where preventive detention is followed by an inquiry or
trial. By its very nature, preventive detention is aimed at preventing
commission of an offence or preventing detained person from achieving a
certain end. The authority, making the order, therefore, cannot always be
in possession of full detailed information when it passes the order and the
information in its possession may fall far short of legal proof of any
specific offence, although it may be indicative of a strong probability of
impending commission of a prejudicial act. The Act of 1988, therefore,
requires that the Central Government or a State Government must be
satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him
from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such
person be detained.
18. The acts, indulged in by persons, who act in concert with other
persons and quite often such activities have far-reaching ramifications on
our younger generation. These acts are preceded by a good amount of
planning and organisation by the set of people. They are not like ordinary
law and order crimes. If, however, in any given case a single act is found
to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be
quashed, but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot
constitute the basis for detention. On the contrary, it does. In other words,
it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making
or sustaining an order of detention. The said views and principles have
been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gautam Jain v. Union of India
another AIR 2017 SC 230.
19. Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1988 provides that "illicit traffic", in
relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means: (i)
cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant; (ii)
cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the
production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation,
warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export
inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; (iv) dealing in any activities in
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those provided in
sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or (v) handling or letting any premises for the
carrying on of any of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv),
other than those permitted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), or any rule or order made, or any
condition of any licence, term or authorisation issued, thereunder and
includes: (1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned
activities; (2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of
doing any of the aforementioned activities; and (3) harbouring persons
engaged in any of the aforementioned activities.
20. The present case relates to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs. The
drug problem is a serious threat to public health, safety and well-being of
humanity. Our global society is facing serious consequences of drug
abuse and it undermines the socio-economic and political stability and
sustainable development. Besides, it also distorts health and fabric of
society and it is considered to be originator for petty offences as well as
heinous crimes, like smuggling of arms and ammunition and money
laundering. Involvement of various terrorist groups and syndicates in drug
trafficking leads to threat to the national security and sovereignty of States
by way of Narco-terrorism. Drug trafficking and abuse has continued its
significant toll on valuable human lives and productive years of many
persons around the globe. With the growth and development of world
economy, drug traffickers are also seamlessly trafficking various type of
drugs from one corner to other ensuring availability of contrabands for
vulnerable segment of society who fall into trap of drug peddlers and
traffickers. Due to India's close proximity with major opium growing
areas of the region, India is facing serious menace of drug trafficking and
as a spill-over effect, drug abuse especially among the youth is a matter of
concern for us.
21. The Constitution framers had visualized danger of misuse of such
type of substances and, thus, made it part of directives issued to the State.
The Directive Principles, which are part of our Constitution, lay down that
the State shall make endeavours to bring about the prohibition of
substances injurious for health except for medicinal and scientific
purposes. In recent years, India has been facing a problem of transit traffic
in illicit drugs. The spillover from such traffic has caused tribulations of
abuse and addiction. This trend has created an illicit demand for drugs
within the country. The illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people
and activities of persons engaged in such illicit traffic have a deleterious
effect on the national economy as well. Having regard to the persons by
whom and the manner in which such activities are organised and carried
on, and having regard to the fact that in certain areas which are highly
vulnerable to the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, such activities of a
considerable magnitude are clandestinely organised and carried on, it is
necessary for the effective prevention of such activities to provide for
detention of persons concerned in any manner therewith.
22. The consequences of drug use usually are not limited to user and
often extend to the user's family and the greater community. The
consequences of illicit drug use impact the entire criminal justice system,
taxing resources at each stage of the arrest, adjudication, incarceration and
post-release supervision process. It impacts productivity. It causes
premature mortality, illness, injury leading to incapacitation and
imprisonment all serve to directly reduce national productivity. Public
financial resources expended in the areas of health care and criminal
justice as a result of illegal drug trafficking and use are resources which
could otherwise be available for other policy initiatives.
23. The global drug problem presents a multifaceted challenge that
touches the lives of millions worldwide. From individuals struggling with
substance use disorders to communities grappling with the consequences
of drug trafficking and organized crime, the impact of drugs is far-
reaching and complex. There is a great loss of productivity associated
with drug-related premature mortality. Although it is difficult to place a
dollar value on a human life, a rough calculation of lost productivity can
be made based on the present discounted value of a person's lifetime
earnings. There are also health-related productivity losses. An individual
who enters a residential drug treatment program or is admitted to a
hospital for drug treatment becomes incapacitated and is removed from
the labour force. Productivity losses in this area alone are enormous.
Health-related productivity losses are higher still when lost productivity
associated with drug-related hospital admissions, including victims of
drug-related crimes, is included. These imperative aspects concerned with
illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances cannot be
overlooked or ignored.
24. To sum up, it is relevant to refer to the observations of the Supreme
Court that while dealing with the question of preventive detention under
the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974, in the case of Prakash Chandra Mohan v.
Commissioner, 1986 Cr.L.J. 786. The Supreme Court observed that it
must be remembered that observance of written law about the procedural
safeguards for protection of individual is normally the high duty of public
official but in all circumstances not the highest. The law of self-
preservation and protection of the country and national security may claim
in certain circumstances higher priority.
25. For the reasons discussed above, instant petition is without any
merit and is accordingly dismissed.
26. Detention record to be returned back to Mrs. Monik Kohli, learned
Sr. AAG by the Registrar Judicial of this Court.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
Judge
JAMMU
17.10.2025
Bir
BIR BAHADUR SINGH
2025.10.17 14:45
I am the author HCP
document
