The Court observed that the detaining authority had duly noted the detenu's involvement in multiple NDPS cases notwithstanding the grant of bail, reflecting a complete lack of remorse.

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order issued under the PITNDPS Act. A Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while dismissing the petition, observed,

"A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the detaining authority duly noted the petitioner's involvement in multiple cases under the NDPS Act notwithstanding the grant of bail, reflecting a complete lack of remorse."

The Court further observed,

"This Court has compared the grounds of detention viz-a-viz the dossier prepared by the SSP concerned and finds that there is no similarity between the two and as such, it cannot be said that the grounds of detention are verbatim reproduction of the dossier submitted by the SSP."

The petitioner was detained under the PITNDPS Act. According to the respondents, the petitioner was involved in four FIRs, all registered under the NDPS Act. The petitioner had earlier been detained under the PITNDPS Act and was released after the expiry of the detention period. Despite this, he did not desist from criminal activities and again started indulging in illicit drug trafficking.

The continued indulgence was evident from his arrest in another FIR when 2.2 grams of heroin was recovered from his possession. Although granted bail with a condition to refrain from such activities, the petitioner persisted in his unlawful activities, which could not be effectively checked through an application for cancellation of bail, thereby rendering preventive detention imperative.

The High Court examined each of the grounds raised by the petitioner and rejected them. On the ground of vagueness and non-application of mind, the Court noted that the dossier was submitted by the Sponsoring Agency narrating the petitioner's antecedents, including his involvement in four FIRs and his earlier detention. The Court observed,

"The said dossier was taken note of by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir and in the grounds of detention, he has mentioned that if the petitioner is allowed to roam freely, it would be detrimental to the social order, public health, safety of children and women as the petitioner has been supplying drugs to vulnerable youth."

On the ground that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, the Court compared the two documents and found no similarity, holding that the contention was without merit. On the ground that the detaining authority had not addressed how ordinary law had failed, the Court observed,

"A perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the detaining authority duly noted the petitioner's involvement in multiple cases under the NDPS Act notwithstanding the grant of bail, reflecting a complete lack of remorse."

The High Court thus dismissed the petition, finding no reason to show indulgence. The Court observed, "In view of the above this Court finds no reason to show indulgence. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly."

Case Title: Firdous Ahmad Mir v. Union Territory of J and K (Home) and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Appearances

Petitioner: Mr. Zahid Hussain Dar, Advocate

Respondents: Ms. Raheela Khan, Assisting Counsel

Click here to read/download Judgment