Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

J&K HC Upholds Preventive Detention Order in Narcotic Drugs Case, Citing Grave Threat to Public Health and Safety

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the order of preventive detention passed against Mohammad Ashraf Dar in a case related to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The court, while pronouncing its judgment in WP (Crl) no.380/2022, emphasized the grave threat posed by drug abuse to public health, safety, and the welfare of society, particularly the younger generation.

In its detailed judgment, the High Court addressed several crucial aspects of the case. The court noted that the order of detention was passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The petitioner had argued that the detaining authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. However, the court held that the order was passed under the corresponding Central Act, which had been extended to the Union Territory of J&K.

The court further examined the grounds of detention and dismissed the petitioner's contention of vague allegations. It emphasized that the detaining authority had provided compelling and cogent reasons for the preventive detention order. The court observed that the detenu was involved in illegal drug trade, exploiting vulnerable individuals, particularly the youth, and fueling addiction and criminal activities.

Addressing the issue of procedural safeguards, the court examined the detention record and found that the material relied upon by the detaining authority had indeed been provided to the detenu. Therefore, the court held that the Constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(5) had been upheld.

The court underscored the purpose and scope of preventive detention, highlighting that its objective was not punitive but preventive. It noted that the detention order was based on a reasonable probability of the detenu engaging in similar prejudicial acts in the future. The court further emphasized the serious menace of drug trafficking and abuse, which posed a threat to national security, sovereignty, and the overall well-being of society.

J&K High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of preventive detention. It confirmed the jurisdiction of the detaining authority and declared the grounds of detention to be valid. The court recognized the necessity of preventive detention to combat illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and protect public health and safety.

Mohammad Ashraf Dar vs  Union Territory of J&K and others

Latest Legal News