news details |
|
|
| HC upholds detention under PIT NDPSA of narco smuggler | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 7: Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the detention under PITNDPS of Ajaz Ahmed, son of Abdul Majid, resident of Kothra Nadian, Tehsil Drahal, District Rajouri.
High Court further observed that the detenu was booked in FIR No. 93/2020 for offences under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act. As per the allegations made in the said FIR, 350 grams of charas was recovered from his possession. He was granted bail by the Court, obviously because the intermediate quantity of charas was found in his possession and the bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted to his case. Thereafter, again on 21.03.2024, he indulged in similar activities and he was found in possession of 6/7 grams of heroin. FIR No. 15/2024 for offences under Sections 8/21/22 of NDPS Act came to be registered against him. Again, he was enlarged on bail on 22.04.2024. It is, thus, clear that the detenu has been repeatedly indulging in the activities of drug trafficking and on account of the fact that he has been found to be in possession of non-commercial quantity of drugs, he succeeded in obtaining bail from the Court. Nonetheless he continued to indulge in activities of drug trafficking repeatedly. Therefore, there was sufficient material before the detaining authority to frame an opinion that ordinary criminal law has failed to deter the detenu from indulging in drug trafficking. This Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, cannot undertake judicial review of the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority regarding need to pass a preventive detention order against the detenu, particularly when the said satisfaction is based upon the material on record. The sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be a subject matter of debate before this Court in these proceedings.
Justice Sanjay Dhar after hearing both the sides, while dismissing the petition, observed that it cannot be stated that there was any undue or unreasonable delay between the alleged activities of the detenu and the issuance of the impugned order of detention. The time gap between the last incident in which the detenu was found to be involved and the passing of the impugned order of detention is not too large to presume that the link between the two is snapped. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the detenu to support his contention are not applicable to the facts of the case because of the peculiar facts in which those judgments were rendered. The same, therefore, do not help the case of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the detenu is, therefore, without any merit. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
