Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 4: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Udhampur resident under the PIT-NDPS Act, holding that the failure to disclose rejection of an earlier bail cancellation plea constituted a serious lacuna in the detention process.
Justice Rahul Bharti passed the order in a habeas corpus petition filed by Makhan Din, 45, son of Hakam Din alias Hukam Din, resident of Narsoo, Tehsil Chenani, District Udhampur, who was lodged in Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.
Makhan Din had challenged detention order No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025 dated July 19, 2025, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. He was taken into preventive custody on September 27, 2025.
The detention order was based upon a dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur, referring to FIR No. 188/2024 registered under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Chenani, besides four Daily Diary entries recorded between February 5 and June 19, 2025.
During arguments, Advocate Rajnesh Singh Parihar, appearing for the petitioner, contended that before the dossier was submitted for preventive detention, the prosecution had already sought cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in the NDPS case. However, the application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Udhampur, on April 5, 2025.
The respondents were represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli.
The High Court noted that despite the failure of the prosecution’s attempt to secure cancellation of bail, there was “not even a whisper” about this important fact in the dossier placed before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.
Justice Bharti observed that the detention record itself contained the application moved for cancellation of bail, yet the SSP, Udhampur, did not mention the fact that the exercise had failed.
The Court held that the omission deprived the detaining authority of complete facts while considering whether preventive detention was warranted. It observed that while cancellation of bail had failed on one hand, the petitioner was subsequently subjected to preventive detention on the other, which was a situation “antithetical to each other”.
Finding the processing of the preventive detention case seriously flawed, the High Court quashed detention order No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025 dated July 19, 2025, along with the confirmation order dated October 28, 2025.
The Court further directed the Superintendent of the concerned jail to restore Makhan Din to his personal liberty with immediate effect.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
