Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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