Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sheikh Nassir Hussain Alias Imran vs Union Of India on 4 September, 2010
Author: J. P. Singh
Bench: J. P. Singh
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. HC(W) No. 11 OF 2010 Sheikh Nassir Hussain alias Imran Petitioners State & Ors Respondent !Mr. Jagpaal Singh, Advocate ^Mr. Gagan Basotra, AAG. Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. P. Singh, Judge Date: 04.09.2010 :J U D G M E N T :
Sheikh Nassir Hussain alias Imran has filed this Petition questioning his Detention under Section 3 (1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, ordered vide Divisional Commissioner, Jammus Order No. PITNDPS/01 of 2009 dated 23.11.2009. According to the Divisional Commissioner, the detenu, a notorious and habitual smuggler of Charas, had developed a huge network and a large gang, which was involved in the smuggling of Charas from Kashmir to Gujrat, Ahmedabad, And to prevent him from continuously indulging in smuggling of Charas and spreading his network, it was necessary to detain him under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, although pursuant to 2 his arrest in FIR No. 62/2008 registered at Police Station, Samba under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, he was in judicial lock up in District Jail, Jammu. The ground relied upon by the Divisional Commissioner to detain Sheikh Nassir Hussain in preventive custody, despite his being in judicial custody, is that there was every likelihood that he may manage to get bail and abscond thereafter.
Relying on Sayed Abdul Ala versus Union of India and others, reported as 2007 AIR SCW, 6974, the detenus learned counsel submitted that the Divisional Commissioners order was arbitrary and illegal, in that, it, inter alia, suffered from non-application of mind because the grounds, on the basis whereof, it had been issued, were unwarranted and even otherwise based on unfounded and baseless presumption of the likelihood of detenus release on bail for which there was absolutely no material on records and the detention was thus liable to be quashed.
I have considered the submissions of the detenus learned counsel and those made by the learned State Counsel to support the Detention.
Detention Records made available by the learned State Counsel too have been perused.
3The records produced by the learned State Counsel do not contain any material on the basis whereof it be said that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and abscond thereafter.
The Police Dossier, on which the learned Divisional Commissioner has relied to issue the Detention Order, too does not indicate likelihood of detenus release on bail and absconding thereafter.
The Counter Affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority also does not refer to any material on the basis whereof he recorded satisfaction that there was likelihood of detenus managing bail and absconding thereafter. It is a settled proposition of law that while detaining a person, who was already in custody, in the preventive custody, the Detaining Authority is required to satisfy itself, on reliable material, that the detenu was likely to indulge in activities for which his preventive detention may be permissible under law.
The grounds of Detention and the Detention Order do not indicate the Detaining Authoritys satisfaction as to the detenus likelihood of committing one or the other acts indicated in Section 2 (c) of the Act, when released from judicial custody, on the basis whereof, preventive detention may be permissible.
4Such being the case, Sheikh Nassir Hussains detention, having been ordered, without recording requisite satisfaction as to the existence of the grounds contemplated by the provisions of Section 3 read with Section 2 (c) of the Act, cannot be sustained. This apart, keeping in view the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, bail where-under is only an exception and that too after recording a finding that there was reasonable ground for believing that the accused was not guilty of the offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail, And the fact that there was no Bail application pending in the Court for detenus release on bail immediately before issuance of the Detention Order, the satisfaction recorded by the Divisional Commissioner that the detenu may seek his release on bail and abscond thereafter, without there being any material of any type whatsoever in support thereof, cannot but be termed an exercise of power under Section 3 of the Act, without application of mind.
I am supported in taking the above view by the law laid-down in Sayed Abdul Alas case supra. Thus having been issued in violation of the provisions of Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and 5 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Sheikh Nassir Hussains Detention cannot be sustained. For all what has been said above, this Petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed, quashing Divisional Commissioner, Jammus Order No. PITNDPS/01 of 2009 dated 23.11.2009.
A direction shall, therefore, issue to the respondents to set the petitioner free from preventive custody. Detention records be returned to the State Counsel. (J. P. Singh) Judge Jammu.
04.09.2010 Pawan Chopra