Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 11: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Budgam resident under the PIT NDPS Act, holding that personal liberty cannot be curtailed on mere assertions and sweeping allegations unsupported by specific details.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while allowing the petition of Mushtaq Ahmad Wani of Chewdara, Beerwah, found that the detention grounds reflected conclusions drawn from police material without independent application of mind by the detaining authority.
“Liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed on mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority,” the Court observed.
Wani, through his wife Roheena Akhter, had challenged the detention order issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, on January 6, 2026, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The detention followed a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam, alleging that Wani was persistently involved in drug trafficking and was an active member of an organised drug mafia operating within and beyond the district.
The authorities relied upon FIR No. 29/2023, registered at Police Station Beerwah under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act. According to the police allegations recorded in the judgment, 909 grams of charas powder and four sticks of charas weighing 79 grams were recovered from his load carrier when he was apprehended along with his associates.
Advocate Hussain Rashid represented the petitioner, while Haris Khan, AC, appeared for the respondents on behalf of Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri.
The petitioner questioned the detention on grounds including vague allegations and the absence of a live and proximate link between the earlier incident and the detention order. The respondents maintained that the material justified preventive detention and that the prescribed procedural safeguards had been followed.
Examining the detention grounds, Justice Sekhri noted that although Wani had been described as a member of a drug mafia, the authorities had furnished no details identifying the alleged network, its operator, the persons supplied drugs or the duration of its activities.
The Court further noted that the detention rested on a solitary FIR in which Wani had already been granted bail and was undergoing trial. It questioned what prevented the prosecution from seeking cancellation of bail before the trial court, or challenging the bail order before a higher court, if he had allegedly continued similar activities in violation of bail conditions.
Distinguishing between “law and order” and “public order”, the Court observed that an individual criminal act does not automatically constitute a disturbance affecting the public at large. It emphasised that preventive detention cannot be resorted to when ordinary criminal law is competent to deal with the alleged activities.
The Court held that apprehensions based on mere surmises and omnibus allegations were insufficient to establish an adverse impact on public order.
Allowing the petition through its judgment, the High Court quashed the detention order and directed Wani’s immediate release from detention, provided he was not involved or required in any other offence. (JNF) |
