Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babli vs State Of Haryana Through Secretary To ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
CWP-19894-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(205)
CWP-19894-2025
Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on Whether only Whether the full
the operative judgment is
part of the pronounced
judgment is
pronounced
14.11.2025 18.11.2025 18.11.2025 No Yes
Babli ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Mohit, Advocate and Ms. Pavitra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. This petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, in the
nature of certiorari, for quashing orders dated 30.05.2025 and 01.08.2025,
Annexures P-1 and P-6, respectively, passed by Secretary to Government,
Haryana, Home Department, whereby petitioner has been detained for a period
of six months under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the
PITNDPS Act"). Petitioner has also sought quashing of order dated
30.06.2026, Annexure P-4, whereby a representation given by petitioner's
daughter has been rejected.
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has been named as an
accused in three different FIRs registered for offences under the NDPS Act. He
asserts that small or intermediate quantity of heroin was allegedly recovered
from the petitioner and although she has been convicted in one case, other two
trials are pending, wherein she is on bail. It is his categoric assertion that
petitioner is adhering to the conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court and
besides three criminal cases, there is no incriminating material with the
detaining authority to form an opinion that the petitioner is likely to indulge in
the trade of narcotic drugs. A strong reliance has been placed by him upon a
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Singh alias
Bhindi, Versus State of Haryana and others, (LPA-2654-2025, decided on
09.09.2025) to emphasize that mere involvement in three cases under the
NDPS Act is not sufficient to keep the petitioner in confinement.
3. Per contra, while opposing the petition, State counsel has made a
detailed reference to the written statement filed to the amended writ petition.
She asserts that in the year 2025, a total of 121 cases have been registered
under the NDPS Act in District Hisar and of the 235 accused, petitioner is one
of them. She states that 562 drug accused have been identified. She asserts that
a proposal for detaining the petitioner was prepared on 22.03.2025 and was
forwarded to the Director General of Police, Madhuban along with a dossier
and complete record, which after consideration, was duly forwarded to the
Secretary, Home Department, who has passed the impugned orders after
considering and examining the incriminating material. It is her stand that the
procedure prescribed under the PITNDPS Act has been adhered to before
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
passing the detention orders and as there is material to show that petitioner,
who is a habitual drug trafficker, is likely to indulge in nefarious activities. She
has highlighted that petitioner's family members are also involved in the trade
and there are three FIRs registered against petitioner's son, Arman, who is also
accused of peddling heroin.
4. This Court has heard counsel for the parties and given a thoughtful
consideration to the arguments addressed by them. The documents and other
material referred to by the counsel has also been analyzed.
5. Petitioner has been found to be involved in three criminal cases, the
details of which are as under:-
Sr. FIR No., date, u/s Narcotic Date of Bail/ Present stage
No. and Police substance Arrest Custody or Case
Station
dated 25.04.2020 heroin granted on sentenced to
u/s 21(b) NDPS 11.06.2020 undergo
Act and 188 IPC, rigorous
PS HTM, Hisar, imprisonment
Haryana for 03 years
with fine of
Rs.5000/-
2 FIR No.739 2.53 gm 25.10.2024 Bail Under Trial
dated 25.10.2024 heroin granted on
u/s 21(b) NDPS 26.10.2024
Act, PS HTM,
Hisar, Haryana
3 FIR No.834 2.06 gm 03.12.2024 Bail Under Trial
dated 03.12.2024 heroin granted on
u/s 21(b) NDPS recovered 04.12.2024
Act, PS HTM, from
Hisar, Haryana Babli &
3.40 gm
heroin
from co-
accused
Geeta
6. It is clear from the above details that while in the first case that
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
petitioner was convicted after trial and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years. In second and third case, she has been released
on bail, though in the third case, matter is still under investigation. On the
basis of this material, detaining authority has come to the conclusion that
petitioner is involved in illegal trade of narcotic substance for the last five
years. It has been further recorded in the detention order, Annexure P-1, that as
per source report of Incharge, Security Branch, office of Superintendent of
Police, she is actively engaged in trafficking of narcotic substance. However,
such a report has neither been placed on the record by the respondents nor
could be referred to by the State counsel during the course of arguments.
Undoubtedly, an application for cancellation of bail in the second FIR,
mentioned above, has been filed by the prosecution, but as has been admitted
in the response filed by the respondents, application is being adjourned and
notice has not been issued to the petitioner. It seems that the prosecution has
not so far insisted upon the application before the Trial Court.
7. Respondents have alleged that petitioner's son is involved in two
criminal cases and details of the FIRs registered against him have been
reproduced in the response filed to the amended writ petition. The criminal
antecedents of petitioner's son were never a part of the record before the
detaining authority. Respondents, therefore, cannot place reliance upon them
to support the detention order. First FIR was registered against the petitioner in
the year 2020 and an appeal against the order of conviction is pending. This
criminal case qualifies as stale material and could not have been taken into
consideration by the detaining authority as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
Ameena Begum Versus State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587.
8. Besides the criminal antecedents, respondents could not bring any
other incriminating material to the notice of this Court to enable it to come to
the conclusion that petitioner has been indulging in criminal activities after
being released on bail. Mere involvement of the petitioner in three FIRs, even
though she has been convicted in one of them, cannot be a ground to detain her
as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Lakhwinder Singh alias
Bhindi's case (supra). Respondents have not been able to establish a live as
well as proximate link between the past conduct of the petitioner and
unavoidable need to detain her. Preventive detention is an extra ordinary
power and has to be exercised sparingly, based on credible and proximate
evidence of future criminal activities and not solely on the basis of the past
conduct or vague apprehension. The material placed upon by the detaining
authority is not germane to arriving at a subjective satisfaction for passing the
impugned detention orders, which cannot be sustained.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned
order dated 30.05.2025, Annexures P-1, order dated 30.06.2025, Annexure
P-4, and confirmation order dated 01.08.2025, Annexure P-6, passed by the
respondent-authorities are set aside.
10. Petitioner is directed to be released from detention forthwith, unless
her custody is required in any other criminal case.
18.11.2025 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.
