While setting aside a detention order passed under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the view of the Apex Court that consideration of bail orders and bail conditions is a mandatory requirement and failure to do so vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

The High Court was considering a petition challenging the preventive detention order and the confirmation order passed under the PITNDPS Act, whereby the petitioner, who was already on bail in five NDPS cases involving non-commercial quantities, had been detained for a period of six months.

The Single Bench of Justice Manisha Batra held, “Merely describing the petitioner as a “habitual offender” or stating that he is “likely to resume trafficking” is not sufficient in law unless supported by credible and proximate material showing an immediate threat. It is also significant that the petitioner is on bail in all the cases. However, the detaining authority has nowhere examined or recorded any finding as to how the conditions imposed by the criminal Courts were inadequate or ineffective to prevent the alleged activities. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, consideration of bail orders and bail conditions is a mandatory requirement and failure to do so reflects non-application of mind and vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.”

Advocate Kushager Mahajan represented the Petitioner, while Assistant Advocate General Neeraj Poswal represented the State.

Factual Background

The petitioner was involved in five cases registered against him under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, involving non-commercial quantities of contrabands. He was granted the concession of regular bail in all of those cases. The Superintendent of Police wrote a letter to the Director General of Police, Haryana State Narcotics Control Bureau, requesting him to detain the petitioner on the grounds that he was still involved in the sale of narcotic substances. The said letter was forwarded to the Director General of Police for obtaining an order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act).

Thereafter, the Secretary, Home Department, while acting upon the proposal sent by the Director General of Police, ordered the petitioner’s detention. The petitioner was accordingly detained. Thereafter, vide the impugned order, the petitioner’s detention order was confirmed, and the petitioner was ordered to be kept in detention for a period of six months. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police (1974), wherein it has been observed that detention cannot be sustained merely because the detenu had indulged in illegal activity in the distant past, as such an approach would amount to misuse of preventive powers and virtual nullification of the judicial process. Reliance was also placed upon other recent pronouncements of the Apex Court, including Roshini Devi v. The State of Telangana and others (2026).

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the impugned detention order was not founded upon any credible, proximate or compelling material demonstrating imminent likelihood of the petitioner’s involvement in illicit trafficking. “A careful reading of the grounds of detention, which are annexed as Annexure A with the impugned order, shows that the entire case of the respondents is based only on the petitioner’s past involvement in criminal cases and on general and vague apprehensions about his future conduct, without pointing out any specific, recent or concrete incident which could justify the extreme step of preventive detention”, it added.

Considering that the detention order was passed more than six months after the registration of the last case against the petitioner, the Bench stated, “Such unexplained delay clearly breaks the live and proximate link between the alleged past activities and the need for immediate preventive action. When these factors are seen together, it becomes evident that the impugned detention is based more on past history and assumptions rather than on any real and urgent necessity.”

Holding that the detention assumed a punitive character instead of a preventive one and resulted in an unjustified curtailment of the petitioner’s fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. “The petitioner is ordered to be released from detention forthwith”, it directed.

Cause Title: Gurnam Singh @ Gama v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:`126063)

Click here to read/download Order


Punjab & Haryana High CourtJustice Manisha Batra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.