Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Parveen Akhter Age 24 Years vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 19 August, 2025
Serial No. 100
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025
Reserved on:- 07.08.2025
Pronounced on:- 19.08.2025
Parveen Akhter Age 24 years
W/O Haroon Rashid
R/O Ward No.2, Tehsil & District Rajouri
at present lodged in District Jail, Jammu
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prince Khanna, Advocate.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Through Commissioner/Secretary (Home)
Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Jammu.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police,
Rajouri.
4. The Superintendent District Jail,
Jammu.
..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order No. PITNDPS-41
of 2024 dated 12.11.2024 (impugned order), passed by respondent No.2-
Divisional Commissioner, Jammu (“the detaining authority”), in exercise of
powers under Section 3 the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 (PIT NDPS Act) read with SRO 247 of
2 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025
1998 dated 27.07.1998, whereby, the petitioner, namely, Parveen Akhter
W/O Haroon Rashid R/O W.No.2 Rajouri Tehsil and District Rajouri
(‘the detenue’) has been detained in order to prevent her from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the safety/security of the public at large.
02. The impugned detention order has been challenged through the
medium of the instant petition, being in breach of the provisions of Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India read with provisions of PIT NDPS Act. It
has also been assailed on the grounds that the impugned order has been
passed without application of mind, there being no compelling reason as the
detenue was facing trial in all the cases, though being admitted to bail, to
invoke preventive detention; that the impugned order was based on stale
cases, registered against detenue in the years 2019 to 2024; that in all the
cases, small quantities of contraband was alleged to have been recovered and
she was not a notorious criminal as alleged; that impugned order is not
reasoned, without holding subjective satisfaction.
03. Respondents have filed the counter affidavit, reasoning that the
detenue was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Prevention of
Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, as
had she been let free there would have been every likelihood of her re-
indulging in criminal activities; that the detenue is involved in numerous
criminal activities of drug peddling as a habitual smuggler, engaged in the
illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which poses a
serious threat to the lives of young generation of the country and even to the
economy of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It is further
submitted that the repeated and continuous involvement of the detenue, in the
3 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025
illicit trafficking of drugs and psychotropic substances and her disrespectful
attitude towards the substantive law, it has become inevitable to detain her
preventively.
04. Mr. Prince Khanna, learned counsel for the detenue, while being
heard, making reference to the grounds of detention, would argue that on a
cursory look on the same it is manifest that same are vague, besides replica of
the dossier. It is also submitted that the Detaining Authority, on the basis of
dossier submitted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajouri without
application of mind; and without evaluating the allegations made against the
detenue in the said dossier, proceeded to pass impugned detention order,
whereby the detenue has been detained and directed to be lodged at District
Jail, Jammu. It is further argued that there was delay of 34 days in execution
of the detention order, which suggests that there was neither any urgency nor
any justification for preventive detention. It is also submitted that the
Detaining Authority has not mentioned in the detention order that the detenue
has right to make representation against the order of detention and she was
supplied the copies of the documents/FIRs and material relied upon by the
Detaining Authority which were neither legible nor readable documents, so
the detenue was prevented from making effective and meaningful
representation against the detention order to the government, as such, the
detention order is liable to be quashed.
05. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG for the respondents,
ex adverso, submits that the record reveals that there is no vagueness in the
grounds of detention. All the procedural safeguards prescribed under Act and
the rights guaranteed to the detenue under the Constitution have strictly been
4 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025
followed in the instant case. The detenue has been furnished all the material,
as was required, and was also made aware in the language understandable to
the detenue, of her right to make representation to the detaining authority as
well as government, against her detention. Learned Sr. AAG further submits
that though the detenue has been granted bail in three cases registered against
her by the competent court of law, however, based on DDR No.11 dated
08.09.2024 as well as the Dossier dated 02.11.2024 issued by the SSP, the
detention order has been passed by respondent No.2. She further submits that
the delay of 34 days in execution of warrant is due to procedural movement of
file from one office to another.
06. Heard learned counsel for both the sides at length, considered their
submissions and perused the detention record.
07. The right of personal liberty is most precious right guaranteed
under the Constitution. It has been held to be transcendental, inalienable
and available to a person. A person is not to be deprived of his/her personal
liberty except in accordance with procedures established under law and the
procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR SC
597), is to be just and fair. The personal liberty may be curtailed, where a
person faces a criminal charge or has been convicted of an offence and
sentenced to imprisonment. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal
charge and is temporarily deprived of his/her personal liberty because of the
criminal charge framed against him/her, has an opportunity to defend
himself/herself and to be acquitted of the charges in case the prosecution fails
to bring home his/her guilt. Where such a person is convicted of the offence,
5 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025
he/she still has the satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to
contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his/her defence.
08. Nevertheless, framers of the Constitution have, by
incorporating Article 22 (5) in the Constitution, left room for detention of a
person without a formal charge and trial and without such person having been
held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent
court. The object is to save the society from activities that are likely to
deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In
such a case it would be dangerous for the people at large, to wait and watch
as, by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous
designs, would execute his/her plans, exposing the general public to risk and
cause colossal damage to life and property. It is, therefore, necessary to take
preventive measures and prevent the person bent upon perpetrating mischief
from translating his/her ideas into action. Article 22(5) Constitution of India
therefore leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law.
09. The detention record, as produced, reveals that the detenue was
involved in following cases registered at Police Stations Rajouri and Bahu
Fort, Jammu vide:-
(i) FIR No.567/2019; U/S 8/21/22 NDPS Act, PS Rajouri;
(ii) FIR No. 36/2022; U/S 8(a)/21/29 NDPS Act, PS Rajouri.
(iii) FIR No. 69/2024; U/S 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act PS Bahu Fort, Jammu.
Besides, above mentioned case FIRs, one DDR No.11 dated 08.09.2024
recorded at Police Station Rajouri against the detenue, has also
been based to pass the impugned order. Involvement of the detenue in the
6 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025
aforementioned cases appears to have heavily weighed with by the
detaining authority while passing detention order. Even in aforementioned
three FIRs, the charge sheets are presented before the court of competent
Court of law, however, bail was granted to the detenue by the court(s) in all
the cases.
10. Perusal of detention record reveals that detenue at the time of
execution of detention i.e., on 16.12.2024 was provided copy of the detention
order along with grounds of detention, dossier and other relevant material.
The detenue, as record would reveal, was also informed as regards making of
representation against the detention order if she so desired, both to detaining
authority and Government.
11. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any
ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what
actually weighed with the detaining authority while passing detention order.
The detaining authority has narrated facts and figures that persuaded it, to
exercise its powers under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, and record subjective
satisfaction that detenue was required to be placed under preventive detention
in order to prevent her from committing any of the acts within the meaning of
illicit traffic. The detaining authority has informed detenue that she is an
accused in three cases, involving illegal trafficking of narcotic substances,
which poses serious and great threat to the society particularly/especially
young generation. So viewed, the detenue is not to be heard saying that any of
her Constitutional and Statutory rights have been violated while detention
order in question was served on her and thereafter executed.
7 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025
12. The contention that the impugned order is vitiated as it was
executed after a period of one month, is not tenable as the detenue is resident
of Rajouri district, whereas impugned order was passed by the detaining
authority-Divisional Commissioner as Secretary to Government in Jammu
and time would have been taken in communicating the order to the executing
authorities. Otherwise also, the order impugned had not been passed to
prevent the detenue from activities prejudicial to the security of UT of J&K,
so as to attract its urgent execution.
13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of
“Hardhan Saha v. State of W.B” [(1975) 3 SCC 198], has succinctly
pointed out difference between preventive and punitive detention in the
following words:
“The essential concept of preventive detention is that the
detention of a person is not to punish him for something
he has done but to prevent him from doing it. The, basis
of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a
reasonable probability of the likelihood of the detenu
acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing
him by detention from doing the same. A criminal
conviction on the other hand is for an act already done
which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence.
There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of
law and a detention order under the Act. One is a
punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one,
case a person is punished to prove his guilt and the
8 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in
preventive detention a man is prevented from doing
something which it is necessary for reasons mentioned in
section 3 of the Act to prevent.”
14. The conceptual framework of preventive detention has been
reiterated in “Khudiram Das v. State of W.B“, [(1975) 2 SCR 832], as under:
“The power of detention is clearly a preventive measure.
It does not partake in any manner of the nature of
punishment. It is taken by way of precaution to prevent
mischief to the community. Since every preventive
measure is based on the principle that a person should
be prevented from doing something which, if left free and
unfettered, it is reasonably probable he would do, it must
necessarily proceed in all cases, to some extent, on
suspicion or anticipation as distinct from proof.”
15. In “Naresh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India“, [(2005) 8 SCC 276], the
Court observed:
“It is trite law that an order of detention is not a curative
or reformative or punitive action, but a preventive
action, avowed object of which being to prevent the anti-
social and subversive elements from imperilling the
welfare of the country or the security of the nation or
from disturbing the public tranquillity or from indulging
in smuggling activities or from engaging in illicit traffic
9 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc.
Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to
society. The authorities on the subject have consistently
taken the view that preventive detention is devised to
afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a
man for having done something but to intercept before he
does it, and to prevent him from doing so.”
16. The instant case relates to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances. The drug problem is a serious threat to public health,
economy and growth of humanity. Our global community is facing serious
consequences of drug abuse and it undermines the socio-economic and
political stability and sustainable development. Besides, it also distorts the
health and fabric of the society and it is considered to be the originator for
petty offences as well as heinous crimes like smuggling of arms &
ammunition and money laundering. The involvement of various terrorist
groups and syndicates in drug trafficking leads to threat to the national
security and sovereignty of States by the way of Narco-terrorism. The drug
trafficking and abuse has continued its significant toll on valuable human
lives and productive years of many persons around the globe. With the growth
and development of world economy, drug traffickers are also seamlessly
trafficking various type of drugs from one corner to other ensuring the
availability of the contrabands for vulnerable segment of the society who fall
into the trap of drug peddlers and traffickers. Due to India’s close proximity
with major opium growing areas of the region, India is facing serious menace
10 HCP No. 52/2025
CM No. 2176/2025
of drug trafficking and as a spill-over effect, drug abuse especially among the
youth, is a matter of concern for us.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clearly disclosed that it is
not the number of acts that are to be determined for detention of an individual
but it is impact of the acts which is material and determinative. In the instant
case the acts of detenue relates to drug trafficking, which has posed serious
threat, apart from health and welfare of the people, to youth, most particularly
unemployed youth, to indulge in such acts, ramifications thereof would be
disastrously irreversible and unimaginable. Her repeated acts of illicit
trafficking in narcotics and psychotropic substances, smuggling the same in
Rajouri and Jammu, are sufficient which had weighed with the detaining
authority to draw its subjective satisfaction to pass the impugned detention
order. The detenue has not been able to convincingly point out violation of
any statutory or constitutional provisions.
18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
discussion made hereinabove, the petition is found to be devoid of any merit
and substance and is liable to be rejected. The petition is, thus, dismissed and
the impugned order relating to preventive detention of the petitioner is
upheld. No order to costs.
19. Detention record, as produced, be returned to learned Sr. AAG.
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
19.08.2025
Surinder
Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No
Surinder Kumar
Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No
2025.08.19 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
JAMMU