Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 17.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 31 July, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:25480
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 10001 of 2025
Reserved on : 17.07.2025
Decided on : 31.07.2025
.
Jaspal Singh.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioners : Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior
r Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh
Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(a) To issue writ of habeas corpus thereby directing
the respondents to release the petitioner from illegal
detention made pursuant to the impugned order of
preventive detention dated 6.5.2025 Annexure P-1.
(b) To pass appropriate order, direction or writ thereby
quashing and setting aside the impugned order of
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
2
2025:HHC:25480
preventive detention dated 6.5.2025, Annexure P-1,
passed under Section 3(1) of Prévention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988,
.
in view of the submissions made hereinabove, in the
interest of justice.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of order
dated 06.05.2025, passed by Additional Chief Secretary
(Home), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, under
Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the NDPS Act‘), preventive detention of the petitioner has
been ordered, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for
the reason that there is a complete violation of the provisions of
Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, as neither the grounds
of detention were made available to the petitioner nor any
opportunity of making a representation against the impugned
order, was given to him. On these counts, the quashing of
impugned order has been sought.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that simply because certain cases were registered
against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, in none of which, he
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:25480
as of now, has been convicted, there was no occasion for the
Authorities to order his preventive detention. He submitted that
the exercise of power in this regard by the Authorities was
.
totally unwarranted and there was no occasion for the issuance
of impugned order and otherwise also, the order is not
sustainable in the eyes of law, as neither the grounds of
detention were made available to the petitioner nor any
opportunity was granted to him to make any representation
against the impugned order.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate
General, by relying upon the reply filed by the respondents
submitted that there are two cases registered against the
petitioner under the NDPS Act in the year 2024 which are under
trial. One case was registered on 26.06.2024 and the other
case was registered on 28.07.2024, details whereof are
provided in the reply. He submitted that the petitioner was
arrested two times under the NDPS Act and thereafter also, he
has not stopped the illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs, which
clearly manifested that he was a habitual drug trafficker. He
further stated that the interrogation of the accused, as was
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
4
2025:HHC:25480
reported by the Investigation Officer, demonstrated that he was
involved in the sale of Charas and Heroin and information
gathered over a period of time demonstrated that whenever he
.
was released on bail, he influenced witnesses and also
indulged in peddling of Narcotic circumstances. He further
submitted that source report revealed that the petitioner was
presently involved in illicit trafficking of Poppy Husk, Heroin and
Charas and was supplying the same to the students of schools,
colleges and other educational institutions and it is in these
circumstances that the order of preventive detention was
passed.
5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and
have also carefully gone through the documents appended with
the petition.
6. The order of preventive detention dated 06.05.2025,
is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1 and perusal
thereof demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that two
FIRs were registered against the petitioner under the provisions
of NDPS Act. The petitioner was dealing in Narcotic Drugs for
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
5
2025:HHC:25480
quite some time and he was also a drug peddler as well as
drug smuggler and his activities were having ill-effect upon the
society. It was also mentioned in the order that as per the
.
source report, the petitioner was continuing his activities even
after his release on bail and secret reports and source reports
generated by the Field Unit of Police Station Baddi,
demonstrated that the petitioner was actively involved in drug
trafficking. On these basis, the impugned order has been
passed. r
7. This Court is of the considered view that the
reasons as to why the detention order was passed, stand
reflected in the order of detention and, therefore, it cannot be
said that the grounds of detention have not been spelled out in
the order of detention. The contention of learned Senior
Counsel that each and every word or detail or the secret
information or source report etc., should have been appended
with the detention order, does not impress the Court. Informing
the detenue about the grounds of detention obviously means
that the order of detention should not be vague and it should
spell out the reasons/grounds on the basis of which it has been
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
6
2025:HHC:25480
passed by the Authority. If the impugned order contains the
same, then it cannot be said that the same is bad, for the
reason that it does not contains the grounds of detention.
.
8. Of course, this Court is not suggesting that a
detenue does not has a right to assail the order of detention. If
according to him, the reasons which have been given in the
detention order, are per se bad, he can obviously challenge
that, but such an order then has to be assailed on the basis of
the reasons/grounds mentioned therein. However, said order
cannot be allowed to be assailed on the ground that it does not
discloses the grounds of detention.
9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Mortuza Hussain
Choudhary Vs. The State of Nagaland and others, 2025 INSC
321, has been pleased to hold that preventive detention is a
draconian measure whereby a person who has not been tried
and convicted under a penal law can be detained and confined
for a determinate period of time so as to curtail that person’s
anticipated criminal activities. This extreme mechanism is,
however, sanctioned by Article 22(3)(b) of the Constitution of
India. Significantly, Article 22 also provides stringent norms to
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
7
2025:HHC:25480
be adhered to while effecting preventive detention. Further,
Article 22 speaks of the Parliament making law prescribing the
conditions and modalities relating to preventive detention. The
.
Act of 1988 is one such law which was promulgated by the
Parliament authorizing preventive detention so as to curb illicit
trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Needless to state, as preventive detention deprives a person of
his/her individual liberties by detaining him/her for a length of
time without being tried and convicted of a criminal offence, the
prescribed safeguards must be strictly observed to ensure due
compliance with constitutional and statutory norms and
requirements. In Para 7 of the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme
Court has been pleased to further hold as under:-
“7. It would be apposite at this stage to take note of
the statutory regime of the Act of 1988. Section 3(1)
thereof empowers the authorized officers, either of the
Central Government or of a State Government, to detain
any person with a view to prevent him/her from engaging
in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances. Section 3(2) requires a State Government
that passes such a detention order to forward a report of
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
8
2025:HHC:25480
the same to the Central Government within ten days.
Section 3(3) mandates communication of the grounds on
which the detention order has been made to the detenu
.
as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not
later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and
for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen
days from the date of detention. The sub-section records
that this requirement is for the purposes of Article 22(5)
of the Constitution, which mandates such communication
as soon as may be. Section 6 of the Act of 1988 provides
that the grounds of detention are severable and an order
of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid or
inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds
is either found to be vague, non-existent, irrelevant or not
connected with such persons or is invalid for any other
reason. Section 6 specifically records that where a
person has been detained pursuant to an order of
detention under Section 3(1), which has been made on
two or more grounds, such order shall be deemed to
have been made separately on each ground. This
indicates that the order of detention must be
accompanied by the ‘grounds of detention’ made by the
detaining authority itself. Section 11 of the Act of 1988
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
9
2025:HHC:25480
speaks of the maximum period of detention and statesthat the same may be extended up to 2 (two) years from
the date of detention.”
.
10. Coming to the facts of this case, during the course
of arguments, it could not be demonstrated that any of the
statutory provisions of the Act under which the detention orders
have been passed, has been violated. It is a matter of record
that two FIRs stand registered against the petitioner under the
provisions of the NDPS Act and he is out on bail in the said two
FIRs. In fact, it is also a matter of record that the second FIR
was registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act when
he already was on bail in the earlier FIRs registered against
him. In these circumstances, the detention order has been
issued by mentioning therein in detail the grounds/reasons as
to what has necessitated the passing of the impugned order.
The order is in vernacular. It is not the case of the petitioner
that this order was not handed over to him or that he does not
understands the language in which the impugned order was
issued.
11. In said circumstances, in light of the fact that the
Authority has exercised the power vested in it by a Statute, by
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS
10
2025:HHC:25480
following the provisions of the Statute in letter and spirit, this
petition has no merit.
12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is
.
dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 31, 2025
(Shivank Thakur)
::: Downloaded on – 15/08/2025 21:27:25 :::CIS