[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar Binni vs State Of Punjab And Other on 6 March, 2026
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
CWP-22440-2025 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(218) CWP-22440-2025
Deepak Kumar @ Binni Gujjar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ... Respondents
Judgment Judgment Judgment Whether only Whether the full
Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on the operative judgment is
part of the pronounced
judgment is
pronounced
20.02.2026 06.03.2026 06.03.2026 No Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Amit Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepender Singh, Senior Advocate, Addl. A.G., Punjab with
Mr. Kanav Singla, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and
Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondents.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ, in the
nature of certiorari, for quashing orders/report, dated 12.03.2025 and
28.05.2025, Annexures P-4 and P-7, respectively, passed by respondent-
authorities, whereby he has been detained for a period of one year under the
provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PITNDPS Act"). After
quashing the orders, petitioner has sought his release from imprisonment.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is a substantial
delay in issuing of the detention order. It is his contention that a proposal to
1 of 6
detain petitioner was initiated on 09.02.2025 and impugned detention order has
been passed on 12.03.2025, Annexure P-4. Counsel has assailed the detention
orders on the ground that vital material has been withheld from the detaining
authority. He asserts that petitioner has been allegedly found to be involved in
four criminal cases lodged for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act"), but the initiating
authority concealed that he stands acquitted in one of the cases. Counsel has
made a reference to judgment dated 04.02.2025, Annexure P-9, passed by
Special Court, Hoshiarpur, to emphasize that petitioner has been given a clean
chit in FIR No.149, dated 11.10.2020, registered for offences under Section 21
(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. It is also his argument that the last criminal case
under NDPS Act was registered against petitioner on 01.03.2021 and detaining
authority has relied upon stale material to illegally imprison him. He asserts
that petitioner was already in custody in some other criminal case and there was
no imperative need to pass the detention order. Reliance has been placed by
him upon
(i) Bachan Singh Versus Union of India and others, 1990 SCC OnLine
Delhi 245;
(ii) Sama Aruna Versus State of Telangana and another, (2018) 12 SCC
150; and
(iii) Sushanta Kumar Banik Versus State of Tripura and others, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1333.
3. Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by the respondents by
filing a reply by way of affidavit of Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home
Affairs. State counsel has argued that the proposal for detaining petitioner was
initiated on 09.02.2025, Annexure R-1, as he was found indulging in illegal activities
2 of 6
while he was on parole. He submits that there is an intelligence input against
petitioner, which was brought to the notice of the competent authority, who passed
the detention order, Annexure P-4. He states that the grounds of detention were
supplied to petitioner on 12.03.2025, both in English and Punjabi, a language with
which he is conversant. Counsel states that petitioner submitted a representation and
was given a personal hearing by the Advisory Board and the detention order was
confirmed on 14/15.07.2025, Annexure R-13, on basis of report, Annexure P-7. It is
his argument that the detention order has been passed within five weeks of the
commencement of proposal and there is no delay on the part of respondents. He
asserts that the order is in conformity with the provisions of the PITNDPS Act and
cannot be quashed on a technical ground. Strength has been drawn by him upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Versus Umrani
Swaminathan Laxman (1997) 11 SCC 426. State counsel contends that petitioner is
a hardened criminal and has 32 criminal cases registered against him, out of which
four cases are under the NDPS Act. State counsel asserts the pendency of criminal
proceedings under the NDPS Act and incriminating material in possession of
respondents is sufficient for the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective
satisfaction that petitioner is likely to indulge in the trade of banned substance. It has
been emphasized that impugned orders have been passed to restrain petitioner from
carrying out activities, which are prejudicial to the health and welfare of the public.
He asserts that preventive action is precautionary and not punitive in nature. Reliance
has been placed by him upon Abdul Habib Versus U.T. of J&K and others, Law
Finder Doc ID #2655097. It has also been pointed out by the State counsel that
petitioner is undergoing sentence as he has been convicted for murder and an
application for suspension of sentence filed by him has recently been rejected by this
Court.
3 of 6
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective
submissions, besides examining the original record produced by the respondents in
compliance of order passed by this Court.
5. Petitioner is arraigned as an accused in 28 criminal cases lodged for
various offences under the Indian Penal Code. He has also been named as an accused
in 4 cases registered under the NDPS Act. The details of the cases are as under:-
Sr. FIR details Recovery effected Present status of proceedings
Nos.
1 FIR No. 149, dated 2 kg 100 grams Trial has been concluded and
11.10.2020, lodged heroin and Indian two accused, Gurmukh
under Section 21-C and currency of Rs.15 Singh @ Guggu and
29 of NDPS Act at lacs Jashanprret Singh @
Police Station Hariana, Jashandeep Singh have been
District Hoshiarpur convicted. Petitioner and
some other accused have
been found to be innocent
and have been acquitted vide
judgment dated 04.02.2025,
Annexure P-9.
2 FIR No. 185, dated 295 grams heroin Petitioner is on bail
27.12.2019, under
Section 21 and 29 of
the NDPS Act as well
as Section 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959 at
Police Station Sadar,
Hoshiarpur
3 FIR No. 81, dated Smack 1 kg 600 Petitioner is on bail.
28.06.2016, under grams
Section 307 IPC,
Section 21 of NDPS
Act and Section 25 of
Arms Act, 1959, at
Police Station
Garhshankar, District
Hoshiarpur
4 FIR No.28, dated 50 gram heroin Petitioner is on bail
01.03.2021, under
Section 21 and 29 of
NDPS Act, at Police
Station Model Town,
Hoshiarpur
4 of 6
6. From the above table, it is apparent that 2nd, 3rd and 4th cases are
pending before the Trial Court, whereas petitioner has been acquitted in the
first case. This development is not being disputed by the respondents and
should have formed a part of the proposal, which was initiated on 09.02.2025,
to detain the petitioner. It seems that the acquittal of petitioner was not in the
knowledge of the proposal initiating authority, nor was it brought to the notice
of the competent authority, who passed the impugned orders. It stands
established that crucial fact regarding exoneration of petitioner in one of the
four NDPS cases has not been considered by the authorities. In Sushanta
Kumar Banik's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that
requisite subjective satisfaction, the formation of which is a condition
precedent to passing of a detention order, gets vitiated if material or vital facts,
which have a bearing on the issue and which are likely to influence the mind of
detaining authority are suppressed by the sponsoring authority.
7. A perusal of the above reproduced table also shows that the last
criminal case was registered against petitioner in the year 2021 under the
NDPS Act. Respondents have claimed that while petitioner was on parole, he
has maintained contact with hardcore criminals and has also been running a
drug smuggling network while in custody. Allegation has also been levelled
that petitioner and his spouse made an attempt to leave the country by using a
forged passport. Respondents have claimed that in case petitioner is enlarged
and he is likely to continue with the obnoxious activity. All the allegations
levelled by the respondents are based upon an apprehension and no
incriminating material could be brought to the notice of this Court, which
would satisfy initiation of a harsh step of detention in preventive custody on the
5 of 6
basis of mere apprehension. The last criminal case registered against petitioner
would clearly qualify as stale material and cannot form the basis of detaining
him as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sama Aruna's case
(supra) and Ameena Begum Versus State of Telangana and others, (2023) 9
SCC 587.
8. Although, this Court does not find any substance in the argument
raised by the petitioner that there was a delay in the passing of the detention
order, but the respondents have failed to establish a live as well as proximate
link between the past conduct of the petitioner and the imperative need to
detain. 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 past conduct or vague apprehension. This Court is
satisfied that the material relied upon by the detaining authority is not germane
to arriving at a subjective satisfaction for passing of the impugned detention
orders, which cannot be sustained.
9. For the afore-going reasons, writ petition is allowed. Impugned
order, dated 12.03.2025 and order/report, dated 28.05.2025, Annexures P-4 and
P-7, respectively, as well as consequential confirmation order passed by the
respondent-authorities, are quashed. Necessary consequences shall follow.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
06.03.2026
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
