Small Recoveries In FIRs Without Final Report Can't Establish “Continuous Drug Peddling” For Preventive Detention: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that where a detenue was implicated in FIRs involving alleged recovery of small quantities of heroin and both cases were still under investigation, the detaining authority could not conclude that the detenue was engaged in “continuous illegal activities of drug peddling” to justify preventive detention under the Prevention of...
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that where a detenue was implicated in FIRs involving alleged recovery of small quantities of heroin and both cases were still under investigation, the detaining authority could not conclude that the detenue was engaged in “continuous illegal activities of drug peddling” to justify preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order issued under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), whereby the petitioner had been placed under preventive detention and lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri observed: “… the petitioner is found involved in two FIRs, whereby a small quantity of contraband was allegedly recovered from his conscious possession and both the cases at the time of issuance of the impugned order are stated to be under investigation. Since the alleged crimes did not culminate in the presentation of final reports against the petitioner, it does not lie in the mouth of the detaining authority to say that the petitioner is found in continuous illegal activities of drug peddling”.
The petitioner challenged a detention order issued under the PITNDPS Act on the basis of a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua.
According to the dossier, the District Screening Committee had examined the petitioner's activities and found him allegedly involved in continuous illegal drug peddling activities posing a threat to public health and welfare.
The recommendation relied upon two FIRs registered at Police Station Billawar. In FIR No.04/2025, recovery of 1.70 grams of heroin was alleged, while FIR No.106/2025 involved alleged recovery of 4.63 grams of heroin from the petitioner's possession. Both cases were stated to be under investigation at the time of issuance of the detention order.
The petitioner challenged the detention on several grounds, including that he had already been enlarged on bail in the FIRs relied upon by the detaining authority and that ordinary criminal law was sufficient to deal with the allegations against him.
It was also contended that the grounds of detention had not been properly explained to him in a language understood by him and that relevant translated documents had not been supplied.
The respondents defended the detention order by contending that the petitioner was a notorious drug peddler whose activities posed a serious threat to public health and welfare. It was further stated that all relevant material comprising 62 leaves had been supplied and explained to the petitioner in Hindi and Dogri.
The High Court first examined the procedural challenge raised by the petitioner regarding the supply and explanation of detention material. The Court noted from the detention record that copies of the detention order, grounds of detention, dossier, FIRs, witness statements and related material comprising 62 leaves had been supplied to the petitioner against proper receipt and explained to him in Hindi and Dogri.
Since the petitioner had not filed any rejoinder controverting the respondents' assertion, the Court rejected the procedural challenge.
The Bench thereafter proceeded to examine whether the allegations against the petitioner justified preventive detention on the ground of disturbance of public order.
The Court reiterated the settled legal position that preventive detention laws can be invoked only where ordinary criminal law is insufficient to deal with the situation and where the activities complained of affect “public order” rather than merely “law and order.”
Referring to the distinction between the two concepts, the Court observed that while criminal activity or violation of statutory provisions may amount to a law and order issue, disturbance of public order requires an impact on the public at large.
The Bench noted that the detention order was founded entirely upon two FIRs involving alleged recovery of small quantities of heroin, both of which remained under investigation and had not culminated in presentation of final reports. The Court held that in such circumstances, the detaining authority could not legitimately conclude that the petitioner was continuously involved in drug peddling activities.
The Bench further found that there was nothing on record to indicate that ordinary criminal law was incapable of addressing the allegations against the petitioner.
The Court observed that apprehensions expressed by the detaining authority regarding a threat to public health and welfare were unsupported by material capable of establishing disturbance of public order.
The Bench further held: “If relevant provisions of the penal code are sufficient to deal with the activities attributed to a criminal, recourse to PSA or preventive detention laws is not only illegal but unconstitutional.”
The High Court held that the allegations relied upon by the detaining authority did not satisfy the threshold necessary for invoking preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and quashed the detention order No.PITNDPS No.53/2025 dated 13.08.2025.
The petitioner was directed to be released forthwith from preventive custody, provided he was not required in any other case.
Case Title: Darshan Singh @ Deepu v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)
Appearances
For the Petitioner: M.K. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Gagan Kohli, Advocate
For the Respondents: Monika Kohli, Senior AAG, with Nisha Kangotra, Advocate