Sr. No.01
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: HCP No.96/2024
Tahir Iqbal, Aged 32 years S/o Petitioner(s)
…..
Muneer Hussain Shah R/o Village
Degwarn Terwan A/p Mohallah
Radio Station Tehsil Haveli and
District Poonch
Through his mother Sayeda Begum,
Age 70 years R/o Village Degwarn
Terwan A/p Mohallah Radio Station
Tehsil Haveli and District Poonch
Through: Mr. Intikhab Shah, Advocate.
Vs
1. The Union Territory of Jammu &
.…. Respondent(s)
Kashmir, through Principal
Secretary (Home), Civil Secretariat,
Jammu.
2. The Divisional Magistrate, Jammu.
3. The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Poonch.
4. The Superintendent, District Jail,
Poonch.
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM:
R. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE M
JUDDGMENT
31.10.2024
Oral:-
01. The petitioner has challenged Order bearing No.PITNDPS 32 of 2024
dated 14.05.2024 passed by respondent No.2, Divisional Commissioner Jammu,
whereby the petitioner has been subjected to preventive detention in terms of
2 HCP No.96/2024
sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Prevention of the Illicit Traffic in Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
.
„PITNDPS Act‟)
02. It has been contended by the petitioner that impugned order has been
passed by respondent No.2 in a mechanical manner without application of mind.
It has been further contended that the petitioner has already been booked for
substantive offences and there was no compelling reason for respondent No.2 to
resort to his preventive detention. It has also been contended that whole of the
material forming the basis of grounds of detention has not been furnished to the
petitioner. Particular emphasis has been laid on non supply of copy of dossier of
detention. It has been contended that on account of non supply of whole of the
material to the petitioner, he could not make an effective representation against
the impugned detention order thereby violating his constitutional and statutory
rights.
03. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing counter
affidavit of the detaining authority, respondent No.2. In the affidavit, it has been
submitted that the petitioner was continuously and repeatedly indulging in
supply of narcotic drugs and in this regard three FIRs were registered against
him, but he succeeded in getting bail on each occasion and continued to indulge
in illicit trafficking of narcotics drugs, which was posing serious threat to public
order as well as to the health and welfare of the people. It has been submitted
that it is because of these reasons that respondent No.2 was compelled to pass
the impugned order of detention. The respondents have submitted that at the
time of execution of warrant of detention the Executing Officer provided
complete set of documents including the dossier, grounds of detention and other
3 HCP No.96/2024
relevant documents (total 130 leaves), which is evidenced by the execution
report. It has been further contended that the petitioner was informed of his
right to make representation before the detaining authority as well as before the
Government, but he has not availed that remedy and instead has chosen to file
the instant writ petition.
04. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
including the detention record produced by Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG,
appearing for the respondents.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on the ground
that whole of the material particularly the copy of the dossier of detention has
not been furnished to the petitioner and that there were no compelling reasons
for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order particularly because the
petitioner was already facing prosecution in as many as three cases. In support
of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of this court
in cases titled
„Mohammad Saleem Parray Vs. Union Territory of J&K and anr.‟
reported in 2023 CriLJ 1893; „Shabir Ahmad Parray Vs. UT of J&K and
(Srinagar Wing);
another‟ WP(Crl) No.158 of 2020 decided on 31.12.2021
Reyaz Ahmed Bhat Vs. State of J&K
„ ‟ H.C. Petition No.292 of 2002 decided on
08.04.
2003(Srinagar Wing); „Tahir Farhat Shah Vs. State and anr.‟ HC(W)
No.50 of 2009 decided on 27.07.2009 (Srinagar Wing); & „Burhan Ayoub Sofi
P(Crl) No.741/2022 decided on
Vs. Union Territory of J&K and ors.‟ W
14.10.2024 (Srinagar Wing).
06. In the context of the first ground, the respondents have along with their
counter affidavit placed on record the execution report which shows that at the
time of execution of warrant of detention, the petitioner has been provided as
4 HCP No.96/2024
many as 130 leaves comprising i) copy of detention warrant (02 leaves); ii)
grounds of detention (04 leaves); iii) notice of detention (01 leaf) and other
relevant record (123) leaves. Execution report bears the signature of the
petitioner in English. The respondents have also produced a copy of the affidavit
sworn by Inspector Kunal Singh Jamwal, the Executing Officer, who has
deposed in his affidavit that he has handed over 130 leaves to the petitioner and
informed him that he can make a representation to the government and the
detaining authority against the detention order. From this material, it is clear
that petitioner has been provided 130 leaves which include copy of detention
warrant, grounds of detention, notice of detention and other relevant record.
07. A perusal of the record of detention would reveal that dossier of detention
comprises four leaves and besides this, Annexure-A comprising 60 pages,
Annexure-B comprising 30 pages and Annexure-C comprising 09 pages are
enclosed with it. These enclosures viz. Annexures A, B & C to the dossier are
the documents pertaining to FIR No.484/2020 under Section 8/21 NDPS Act of
Police Station Rajouri; FIR No.163/2023 under Section 8/21/22/25 NDPS Act of
Police Station Poonch; and FIR No.69/2024 under Section 8/21/22/25/29 NDPS
Act of Police Station Bahu Fort Jammu. Thus, other relevant documents
“ ”
reference whereof is made in the execution report when read in light of the
record produced by learned Sr. AAG leads to only one conclusion that the
petitioner has been provided with not only the copy of the dossier but also all
annexures annexed with said dossier, which runs into 123 leaves. Execution
report has admittedly been signed by the petitioner, therefore, it does not lie in
his mouth to make a grievance that he has not received copy of the dossier. The
record shows that the petitioner has not only received copy of the dossier but he
5 HCP No.96/2024
has also received Annexures-A, B & C to the dossier. The contention of the
petitioner, is therefore, without any merit.
08. The next contention that has been raised by the petitioner is that it was not
open to the respondents to resort to preventive detention as the petitioner was
already booked for substantive offences in as many as three FIRs. In this regard,
it is to be noted that in all the three FIRs, the petitioner was enlarged on bail and
this fact has been clearly mentioned in the dossier by the detaining authority
while formulating the grounds of detention. As per FIR No.484/2020 the
petitioner was found to be in possession of 11 kg of Heroin; as per FIR
No.163/2023 he was found to be in possession of 162 gms of Heroin; and as per
FIR No.69/2024 he was found to be in possession of 4.78 gms of Heroin. So
there was enough material on record before the detaining authority to infer that
the petitioner has been repeatedly indulging in illicit trafficking of narcotic
drugs even after having been booked in substantive offences. Thus, the material
on record clearly shows that there were compelling reasons for the detaining
authority to pass the order of preventive detention against the petitioner. The
contention raised by the petitioner in this regard, is therefore, rejected.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition, as such,
the same is dismissed.
( Sanjay Dhar )
Judge
Jammu
31.10.2024
Narinder
Whether order is speaking? Yes
Whether order is reportable? No
Narinder Kumar
2024.11.04 10:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document