Detaining a Person Already in Custody with No Compelling Reasons Recorded Shows a Severed Livelink for Preventive Detention: Delhi High Court Quashes Detention Orders Under PITNDPS Act
The Delhi High Court today quashed the detention orders of Farukh @ Chapta under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, stating that the orders were passed without compelling reasons or proper material justifying the preventive detention of an individual already in custody.
Legal Context: The court scrutinized the validity of a detention order and a subsequent confirmation order issued against the petitioner, who was accused of engaging in narcotic trafficking. The primary legal contention centered on the appropriateness of invoking preventive detention provisions against someone already detained under different charges.
Facts and Issues: The petitioner, previously involved in three NDPS Act cases and several IPC matters, contested the legality of his preventive detention, which was initially ordered due to his alleged continuous criminal engagement detrimental to national health and security. Despite the petitioner’s ongoing custody under existing charges, the detaining authority deemed it necessary to preventively detain him to curb his supposed future criminal conduct.
Court’s Detailed Assessment:
Detaining Authority’s Justification: The court noted that the detaining authority primarily relied on past criminal records and ongoing investigations to justify the detention. However, it failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of the petitioner’s release and subsequent engagement in criminal activities, which is crucial for upholding a preventive detention order.
Lack of Compelling Reasons: Justice Manoj Jain highlighted that there was insufficient evidence presented that indicated an imminent release of the petitioner or that he would continue criminal activities upon release. The court emphasized, “the detention order is conspicuously silent about crucial aspects.”
Reference to Precedents: The judgment referred to several landmark cases, including Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal and Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India, which underline the necessity of substantive and compelling reasons for preventive detention, especially when the individual is already in custody.
Absence of Recent Criminal Activity: The court also questioned the relevance of older IPC cases mentioned by the detaining authority, pointing out that there was no demonstrated link between those cases and the necessity for preventive detention.
Decision: The bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain allowed the petition, quashing the detention orders and emphasizing that preventive detention cannot be used capriciously or without justifiable cause.
Date of Decision: April 30, 2024
FARUKH @ CHAPTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
