MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Necessity of Swift Action Against Habitual Offenders - Detention Order Upheld Despite Delay in Execution: High Court of Delhi Affirms Preventive Detention  under PITNDPS Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi upheld the preventive detention order against Naushad Ali under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act), rejecting his petition challenging the order.

The court focused on the legality of the preventive detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. Despite the delay in executing the detention order, the court held that the detention was justified based on substantial evidence against Ali for trafficking narcotics and psychotropic substances.

Naushad Ali, proprietor of Shaad Medical Store and Kenway Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., was detained under the PITNDPS Act for his involvement in illicit drug trafficking. Ali challenged the detention order dated February 25, 2022, citing delays in execution and alleged violations of procedural norms.

The court meticulously examined the case, noting, “The grievous nature and gravity of offences committed by Naushad Ali in a well-planned manner clearly establishes his continued propensity and inclination to engage in such acts of prejudicial activities.” The court observed that Ali’s evasion from law enforcement contributed to the delay in executing the detention order and did not vitiate the purpose of the detention laws.

The court also noted that Ali was ”rovi’ed with the detention order and grounds while in custody, offering him a fair opportunity to challenge the detention. The representation to the Advisory Board was recognized as adequate for ensuring his rights under Article 22 of the Constitution.

The court concluded that the detention order was necessary and justified based on the evidence and Ali’s conduct. The petition and the pending application were dismissed, affirming the need to immobilize Ali to prevent him from engaging in illicit drug trafficking.

Date of Decision: February 20, 2024.

Naushad Ali Through Perokar Sahajad Ali vs. UOI & ORS.

 

Similar News