Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 6: Sindhu Sharma of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court uphold the detention under PSA of Vikram Singh alleged narco smuggler .
The petition pertains to detention order No. PITNDPS 36 of 2023, dated 14.09.2023, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. The detenu-Vikram Singh, S/o Hoshiyar Singh, R/o Lehar Sungal, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu, was detained by the Detaining Authority on the ground that he is engaged in repeated illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of Union Territory of J&K at large and with a view to prevent him from committing any act under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, the detenu was detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, vide order dated 14.09.2023. This order of detention has been assailed by the detenu through his wife-Nekha Devi.
Justice Sindhu Sharma after hearing Adv Anmol Sharma for the petitioner whereas AAG Amit Gupta for the UT, observed that appears from the record that the detenu has not moved a representation before the authority, therefore, this submission could not be considered. The Detaining Authority has observed that the detenu is continuously engaging in illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a serious threat to the health and welfare of the people and the young generation is affected by it. The Detaining Authority, after recording its subjective satisfaction, has passed the impugned order of detention. The provisions, as contained in NDPS Act, state that if the detaining authority is satisfied to prevent any person from indulging in illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, it would make an order directing that person to be detained. The detaining authority was aware that detenue was engaged in illicit trafficking of drugs and these acts were against the general public, therefore, making it necessary to detain the detenu. . In view of the aforesaid, Court do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order of detention, thus, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. |
