Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 7: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the detention under PIT NDPSA of Ajaz Ahmed, son of Abdul Majid, resident of Kothra Nadian Drahal in Rajouri district.
The detenue was booked in FIR No. 93/2020 for offences under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act. As per the allegations made in the FIR, 350 grams of charas was recovered from his possession. He was granted bail by the court, obviously because the intermediate quantity of charas was found in his possession and the bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted to his case.
Thereafter, again on 21.03.2024, he indulged in similar activities and he was found in possession of 6/7 grams of heroin. FIR No. 15/2024 for offences under Sections 8/21/22 of NDPS Act came to be registered against him. Again, he was enlarged on bail on 22.04.2024.
As the detenue was repeatedly indulging in the activities of drug trafficking there was sufficient material before the detaining authority to frame an opinion that ordinary criminal law has failed to deter the detenue from indulging in drug trafficking.
“This court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, cannot undertake judicial review of the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority regarding need to pass a preventive detention order against the detenue, particularly when the satisfaction is based upon the material on record. The sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be a subject matter of debate before this court in these proceedings”, Justice Sanjay Dhar said.
While dismissing the petition, High Court observed, “the time gap between the last incident in which the detenue was found to be involved and the passing of the impugned order of detention is not too large to presume that the link between the two is snapped. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the detenue to support his contention are not applicable to the facts of the case because of the peculiar facts in which those judgments were rendered”.
“The same, therefore, do not help the case of the petitioner. The contention of the counsel for the detenue is, therefore, without any merit”, High Court concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
