Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Nazir Ahmad Gagroo vs U T Of J&K & Ors on 11 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 04.06.2025
Pronounced on: 11.07.2025
HCP No.301/2024
NAZIR AHMAD GAGROO ...PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Sopori, Advocate.
Vs.
U T OF J&K & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: - Mr. Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadiri, Sr. AAG, with
Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, Assisting Counsel.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, in exercise of his
powers conferred under Section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act of 1988”),
has, vide order No.DIVCOM-“K”/153/2024 dated 22.07.2024,
ordered preventive detention of Nazir Ahmad Gagroo
@Nazira (hereinafter referred to as the detenue), in order to
prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of
the Act of 1988.
2) By the instant petition, veracity and legality of the impugned
detention order has been challenged by the petitioner contending
that the impugned detention order has been passed in breach of
the mandate of law as the detaining authority has not followed the
Page |2
constitutional and statutory procedural safeguards as provided
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It has been contended that
the allegations levelled against the detenue are not based on any
specific details. It has been contended that respondent No.2 has not
applied his judicial mind while passing the impugned order. It has
been further contended that that the impugned order has been
passed in violation of the relevant provisions of the J&K Public
Safety Act as the detention order has neither been approved in time
nor reference made to the Advisory Board within the stipulated
period of time. It has been also contended that the whole of the
material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been
furnished to the petitioner thereby disabling him from making an
effective representation against the impugned order of detention.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have contended
that the detenue has transformed into a notorious illicit drug
peddler in Trikanjan Boniyar area of District Baramulla. It has been
submitted that the detenue, an active member of a larger drug
mafia, was continuously exposing the young and gullible minds
including school going children into the heinous world of drugs and
making them habitual addicts and that the activities of the
petitioner have posed a serious threat to the health and welfare of
the people of the area. It is pleaded that the detention order and
grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by the
detaining authority were handed over to the detenue and the same
was read over and explained to him. That the grounds urged by the
Page |3
petitioner are legally misconceived, factually untenable and
without any merit and that all the statutory requirements and
constitutional guarantees have been fulfilled and complied with by
the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention
order. To substantiate their stand taken in the counter affidavit, the
respondents have produced the detention record.
4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the
detention record.
5) The first ground that has been urged by learned counsel for
the petitioner for assailing the impugned order of detention is that
the same has been passed without application of mind. In this
regard a perusal of the grounds of detention would reveal that it has
been clearly stated therein that the petitioner had indulged in illicit
drug trafficking and was involved in FIR No.264/2023 for offences
under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station,
Baramulla. It has been recorded in the grounds of detention that
the activity of the petitioner poses great threat to the health of the
society, as such, there is imperative need of detaining him by
resorting to the provisions contained in PIT NDPS Act. It has also
been noted in the grounds of detention that the petitioner has been
enlarged on bail in the aforesaid FIR but thereafter, instead of
refraining from indulging in drug trafficking, he has again started
indulging in supply of narcotic drugs in Baramulla area. Thus, the
detaining authority has been quite alive to the facts and the
material that was produced before it and it is only after meticulous
Page |4
examination of the material that the impugned order of detention
has been issued. The contention of the petitioner that there has
been non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority
is without any merit.
6) The second ground that has been urged by learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the detention order has been passed in
violation of the provisions contained in the Jammu and Kashmir
Public Safety Act and that the impugned order of detention has not
been approved the Advisory Board.
7) As already noted, the impugned order has been passed by the
detaining authority in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the
PIT NDPS Act and not under the provisions of J&K Public Safety
Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner is
misconceived and, in fact, it reflects non-application of mind in
drafting the petition.
8) It is also clear from the detention record that the impugned
order of detention has been confirmed by the Government on the
basis of the opinion of the Advisory Board rendered vide
communication dated 29.08.2024. The assertion of the petitioner
in this regard is, therefore, contrary to the record.
9) Next it has been argued that the petitioner could not make a
purposeful representation because he has not been provided whole
of the material, on the basis of which the grounds of detention have
been formulated. In this regard a perusal of the detention record
Page |5
would reveal that the petitioner has been furnished 23 leaves
comprising detention order (01 leaf), notice of detention (01 leaf),
grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (05 leaves),
copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and other related documents
(13 leaves). The receipt bears signature of the petitioner. As per the
execution report, the contents of the aforesaid documents have
been read over and explained to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner
has been furnished whole of the material that has formed basis of
the grounds of detention. The ground urged by the petitioner in this
regard is not supported by the material available in the detention
record. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without any
merit.
10) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to
interfere in the impugned order of detention. The petition lacks
merit and is dismissed accordingly.
11) The detention record be returned to the learned counsel for
the respondents.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
11.07.2025
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the order is reportable: YES/NO
Mohammad Altaf Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document11.07.2025 02:51
[ad_1]
Source link