Continuously Committing Crime Of Illicit Drug Trafficking Despite Bail: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Six Month Detention Of 21 Years Old In 'Interest Of Society'

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the six-month detention order of 21 year old who was involved in repeated drug trafficking instances despite being granted bail in NDPS case.

The Court was considering a Petition challenging the validity of order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 and a subsequent order confirming the six-month detention.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Gajendra Singh observed, "The petitioner, who is aged about 21 years has been found involved in three cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act and one case under M.P. Excise Act. After being released on bail, he has been continuously committing the crime of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs, therefore, the impugned order of detention is desirable and in the interest of the society. Hence, no case for interference is made out."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Makbook Ahmad Mansoori while the Respondent was represented by Deputy Advocate General Sudeep Bhargava.

Facts of the Case

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone – 1 submitted a report to the Additional Commissioner recommending detention of the Petitioner who forwarded the same to the Commissioner with its recommendation. It was found that the Petitioner is a habitual offender, especially offences under the NDPS Act and therefore liable to be detained for a period of six months in order to control his criminal activities. He was formally arrested while being in Police Custody for a case registered under Section 8/22,29 of the NDPS Act.

Subsequently, the Advisory Board approved the order of detention in the exercise of power conferred under Section 9(f) of the PIT NDPS Act. Later, State Government affirmed the impugned order of detention which was assailed in the present petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Commissioner wrongly mentioned the period of six months, which prejudiced the Advisory Board as well as the State Government. It was further contended that the power lies with the State Government to prescribe the period of detention in the order of confirmation

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset mentioned the scheme of ‘the PIT NDPS Act', whereby the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, may pass an order under Section 3(2) directing that such person be detained.

It then referred to the case of Pesala Nookaraju (supra) whereby the Apex Court held that when the State Government passes a confirmatory order under Section 12 of the Act after receipt of the report from the Advisory Board then, such a confirmatory order need not be restricted to a period of three months only.

"It can be beyond a period of three months from the date of the initial order of detention, but up to a maximum period of twelve months from the date of detention. It is also said that the period of three months stipulated in Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution is relatable to the initial period of detention up to the stage of receipt of the report of the Advisory Board and does not have any bearing on the period of detention, which is continued subsequent to the confirmatory order being passed by the State Government on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. Hence, we do not find any substance in the submission of Shri Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioner," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Atul vs. Union Of India And Others (2025:MPHC-IND:9783)

Click here to read/ download Order