Makhan Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others

Suvir Sehgal, J

Petitioner has invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Courtt assailing orders dated 24.03.20025 and 27.05.2025, Annexures P-2 and P-4, passed by respondent-authoritties, whereby petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Prevenntion of Illicit Traffic in Narcootic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Actt, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as “PITNDPS Act”) for a period of seven months from the date of his detenttion i.e. 25.03.2025.

Upon notice, writ petitioon has been contested by the respondennts by filing a reply. In compliaance of an interim order passed by this Court, respondents have filed an affiidavit of Deputy Superintendentt of Police, Kalanwali, District Sirsa, wherebby they have placed a copy of the record/dossier as Annexure R-1 on the baasis of which impugned orders have

Counsel for the parties have been heard and documents brought before this Court have been examined witth their able assistance.

A perusal of Annexure R-1 shows that a proposal for detenttion of petitioner was initiated by the Superiintendent of Police, Dabwali, vide Memo dated 22.01.2025, wherein it was mentioned that petitioner has been found to be involved in possession, sale as well as transportation of narcootic drugs andd psychotropic substances such as poppy straw. It has been staated that besides four old cases, five criminal cases have recently been registeered against hiim at Police Station Sadar, Dabwwali, for offences under NDPS Act. It has been mentioned that petitioner iss engaged in the trade of banned substance since the last number of years and there is urgent need to dettain him. Aloongwith the recommendation, a proforma has been appendded, wherein under column No.6, it has been mentioned as under:-

“6

Details of seizures

1) 40 killo gram Poppy Straw on 26/08/2019 (FIR No.194 dated 26/08/2019 U/S 15b/61/ PS Kalanwali Police Distt. Dabwali Haryana)

2) 35 kilogram No.201 dated 01.09.2020 PS Kalanwali Police Distt. Dabwali Haryana)

3) 4 kilograms No.302 dated 24/11/2020 PS Kalanwali Police Distt. Dabwali Haryana)

4) 3 kg 100 grams Poppy Straw on No.323 dated 19/12/2021 PS Kalanwali Police Distt. Dabwali Haryana)

5) 7 kg Poppy Straw 04/02/2022 U/S 15b/ Kalanwali Police Distt. Dabwali Haryana)

6) 8 kg poppy straw on 08/04/2023 U/S 15b/ Kalanwali Police Distt. Dabwali)

7). 21 kg 500 gram No.07 dated 31/01/2023 PS RORI

8). 2.5 KG Poppy Straw Poppy Straw on 19-04-2023 (FIR NO.76 Date 19-04-202U/S-15-29/61/85 NDPS Act, PS District Dabwali

9). 2 KG 20 Gram Poppy Straw on 20-07-2024 (FIR NO-134 DATE-20-07-2024 U/S-15b/61/85 NDPS Act,

PS Odhan Police District Dabwali

a.

Date of

seizure:

(1) 26/08/2019

(2) 01/09/2020

(3) 24/11/2020

(4) 19/12/2021

(5) 04/02/2022

(6) 08/04/2023

(7) 31/01/2023

(8) 19/04/2023

(9) 20/07/2024

b.

Place of seizure:

(1) Jagmalwali

(2) Taruana

(3) Jagmalwali

(4) Naurang

(5) Makha

(6) Asir

(7) Surtiya

(8) Mithri

(9) Salam Khera

c.

Name of drug

Poppy Straw

d

Quantity of drug seized:

40 kilogarm Poppy Straw

35 Kilogram Poppy Straw

4 kilograms Poppy Straw

3 killo 100 grams Poppy Straw

7 kilograms Poppy Straw

8 kilograms Poppy Straw

21 kg 500 gram Poppy Straw

2 killo 500 grams Poppy Straw

2 killo 20 grams Poppy Straw

e.

Value (approx.):

800000/- Rupees”

Against column No.9, recommmending authority has stated that proposal is based on recovery of contrabaand from proposed detainee and his recent acttivities are suspicious. In columnn No.22, it has been mentioned that petitioner has been caught red handedd with narcotic and psychotroopic substances multiple times and he has been arrested in nine criminal cases, which hass not deterred him from engaginng in drug trade. This material was placed beefore competent authority, who passed impugned detention ordder, Annexure P-2, which was confirmed on recommendation of the Advisory order dateed 27.05.2025, Annexure P-4.

The material placed before detaining authority has to be examined in the light of admitted factual position. Petitioner is undoubteedly involved in nine different FIRs and all criminal cases are under trrial. However,, recovery was effected from the petitioner in only one crimiinal case viz, FIR No.194 dated 26.08.2019 lodged under Section 15(b) of NDDPS Act at Police Station Kalanwali, Police District Dabwali and 40 Kg. popppy straw wass recovered from his possessionn. Insofar as remaining eight caases are conceerned, recovery was effected from co-accused and petitioner was arraigned as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement. It is, therefore, evident that details of seizurre supplied by the recommending authority, do not pertain to petitioner noor has he been caught red handed with contrraband multiple times as has beeen mentioned therein.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Haradhan Saaha Vs. State of West Bengal and others (1975) 3 SCC 198, has held that the essential concept of preventive detentionn is not to punish the detenue for somethingg that he has done, but to preveent him from doing it. The basiss of detention is the satisfaction of the execuutive of a reasonable probabilityy or likelihoodd of detenue acting in a manneer similar to his past conduct and preventing him by detention from doing the same. Apex Court observed that an order of detention is a precautionarry measure and it is based on a reasonable prognosis of future behaviouur of a person based on his past conduct in the light of surrounding circuumstances. In Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana and others (2023) 9 SCC 587, Supreme Court has laid down tests on the basis of which the exerccise of power of detention has to be

When analyzed on the bassis of judgments of the Hon’’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that material placed before the detaining authority is not germane to the past conduct of petitioner. Out of nine caases registered against the petitioner, recovery was effected from him in only one case which was registered in 2019, which should not have taken into consideration as it was registered six years earlier. Insofar as other crimiinal cases are concerned, petitioner has been implicated on basis of statementss of co-accuseed, the legality and veracity of which is subject matter of trial. The material relied upon by detaining authoriity cannot be said to have any live and proxiimate link between the past conduct of the petitioner. The saame cannot form the foundation of subjective satisfaction of detaining authority to come to a conclusion that petitioner is likely to indulge in notorious trade in future. This Court is of the view thaat tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ameena Begum’s case (supra) have not been fulfillled and impugned orders cannot be sustained.

For the aforegoing reasons, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 24.03.2025, Annexure P-2, and affirmation order daated 27.05.20225, Annexure P-4, passed byy Additional Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Home Department,, are set aside. Petitioner is direccted to be released from custody, forthwith unless his detention is required in any other crimminal case.