Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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