'Owning Vehicles Not Result Of Income From Drug Trafficking, Biased Information': HP High Court Quashes Preventive Detention
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a case of preventive detention, has observed that the State's reliance on the petitioner's ownership of two vehicles to infer illegal income from drug trafficking was based on biased and incorrect information.A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj noted: “Both the vehicles were financed from Mahindra...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a case of preventive detention, has observed that the State's reliance on the petitioner's ownership of two vehicles to infer illegal income from drug trafficking was based on biased and incorrect information.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj noted: “Both the vehicles were financed from Mahindra Finance… therefore, impression given… that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities… seems to be based on a biased information…”
The Court recorded that both vehicles owned by the petitioner were duly financed through Mahindra Finance, and therefore, the State's inference that he was generating substantial funds through illicit activities was unsustainable.
The Bench further observed that this incorrect assumption also influenced the Advisory Board's recommendation, which formed part of the basis of the preventive detention order. Consequently, the Court rejected the State's reasoning supporting the detention.
The petitioner, Uved Khan, challenged his detention order issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, detaining him for three months under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
He was detained in June 2025, primarily on the basis of five criminal cases registered against him.
The State contended that preventive detention was necessary to curb drug peddling and to sever the petitioner's links with his criminal network.
The petitioner argued that he was not provided an opportunity to file a representation before the passing of the detention order, which is mandatory under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
The Court noted that only small intermediate quantities were recovered in the past cases, and the petitioner's conviction was merely for a period of three months and nine days.
It further emphasised that the petitioner was not given a chance to file representation, a constitutional requirement under Article 22(5). The failure to comply with this mandatory safeguard vitiated the detention process.
In light of these findings, the Court held that the preventive detention order was legally unsustainable.
Case Name: Uved Khan v/s State of H.P. & others
Case No.: Cr.WP No.15 of 2025
Date of Decision: 11.11.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.Sunny Rawat, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.