Surjeet Singh Through His Wife Rekha Devi v. Ut of J and K Through Principal Secretary to Govt Home Deptt and Others

JUDGMENT

¶01Heard learned counsel for both sides.

¶02Perused the writ record and the documents accompanied therewith. Also perused the detention record.

¶03The petitioner – Surjeet Singh, acting through his wife – Rekha Devi, came forward with the institution of the present writ petition on 08.11.2025 being aggrieved of preventive detention custody imposed upon him by exercise of authority by the respondent No. – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short "PIT NDPS Act, 1988").

¶04The facts of the case read that as per the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ramban, the petitioner was found indulgent in activities falling within the scope of mischief under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988 thereby warranting his booking for preventive detention.

¶05The Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ramban by virtue of a letter No.CB/DOSSIER/25/26340 dated

19.07.2025 submitted a dossier with respect to the petitioner to the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu thereby urging consideration and order for preventive detention of the petitioner.

¶06On the basis of the material so provided by the Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP0), Ramban, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu formulated the grounds of detention for the purpose of evaluating the material for subjective satisfaction as to whether a case is made out for subjecting the petitioner to suffer preventive detention custody.

¶07In the grounds of detention, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came to refer the petitioner as a notorious criminal/drug peddler/habitual offender indulging in sale and purchase of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and continuously active in transportation of drugs and drug trafficking thereby luring young generation in menace of drug addiction. In fact the petitioner has been identified in the grounds of detention as a principal dealer of narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances.

¶08In the name of criminal antecedents of the petitioner, reference to criminal cases under FIR No. 223/2024 of the Police Station Ramban, FIR No. 14/2025 of the Police Station Ramsoo with respect to commission of offences under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

(NDPS) Act, 1985 came to be highlighted with a recital that for trial of a criminal case relatable to FIR No. 233/2024, the petitioner is on bail whereas with respect to a criminal case under FIR No. 14/2015, the petitioner is said to have been convicted and fined for Rs. 8,000/-. In addition, the Grounds of Detention refers four Daily Diary (DD) Entries of November, 2024 of Police Station Ramsoo to show case that the petitioner is indulging in the narcotic substances cases.

¶09On the basis of the grounds of detention, the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu came to pass order No. PITNDPS 48 of 2025 dated 28.07.2025

directing the detention of the petitioner and his confinement in District Jail, Poonch for a period to be specified by the Govt.

¶10In furtherance of said detention order, the petitioner came to be taken into custody on 04.08.2025, when PSI Anil Kumar No. 196712/EXJ of Police Station Ramsoo arrested the petitioner and handed over to him the compilation of 149 leaves related to issuance of detention order and is also said to have explained to the petitioner the contents of the detention warrant as well as the grounds of detention. The petitioner is said to have been informed about his right to make a representation against his detention to the Govt. as well as to the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.

¶11The petitioner's detention case was forwarded to the Govt. for the sake of confirmation prior to which Advisory Board's opinion dated 20.08.2025 came to be solicited which held the detention of the petitioner on justifiable grounds, thus, paving way for issuance of Govt. Order No. Home/PB-V/1640 of 2025 dated 27.08.2025 directing the petitioner's detention period for a period of one year with effect from

05.08.2025 to 04.08.2026.

¶12The petitioner, acting through his wife, came forward with a written representation dated 06.09.2025 submitted to the respondent No. 1 in terms whereof the detention was assailed to be misconceived warranting re-consideration.

¶13The petitioner in his writ petition is assailing his detention order on the basis of the grounds as set out in para 4 (A) to (H). The petitioner asserts that there is no proximate cause between the alleged reported activities of the petitioner and consideration for subjecting him to suffer preventive detention custody. The petitioner submits that uptil the time of filing of writ petition on 08.11.2025, his representation had received no response from the end of the respondents.

¶14The respondents in their counter affidavit have come defending the exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in subjecting the petitioner to suffer preventive detention custody. Counter affidavit came to be filed on 27.01.2026.

¶15When this Court examines the plea of the petitioner as to whether his constitutional right of representation has been put to decor dustbin disposal, this Court comes across from the perusal of the detention record and also from the

affidavit filed from the end of the respondents that said aspect has been taken very casually as if making of a representation by a detenue is a wasteful exercise worth no attention and answerability to the detenue as well as to a constitutional court which being custodian of fundamental rights comes to be approached by a detenue suffering preventive detention custody.

¶16The petitioner in para 5 of his writ petition has come forward with a categoric assertion that his representation dated 06.09.2025 has not been considered and responded to. This statement of fact was being made by the petitioner after he had suffered more than two months' custody from the date of making of representation by him.

¶17On the other hand, in response to averment so made in para 5, the counter affidavit from the end of the respondent No. 2-Divisional Commissioner, Jammu says that representation filed by him before the respondent No. 1 was considered and disposed of.

¶18If a Constitutional Court is being shown the courtesy of this much reply with respect to consideration and disposal of a representation of a detenue, then one can safely infer that how what respect a constitutional right of a

detenue guaranteed under article 22 of the Constitution of India is being given a dismissive treatment from the end none other than the detention order making authority as well as the Govt.

¶19This singular flaw is good enough to quash the preventive detention of the petitioner but there is another flaw vitiating the preventive detention of the petitioner which is that the disposal of the petitioner's representation was taking place on 13.11.2025, when the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu was being apprised by the Home Department, Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir in terms of communication No. Home/PB-V/455/2025/(7670426) dated 13.11.2025 but in the counter affidavit being filed on

27.01.2026, the respondent No. 2 is not even averring or annexing any such document to show that not only representation was considered within reasonable dispatch but apprised to the petitioner.

¶20In light of the aforesaid serious procedural flaw related to the preventive detention of the petitioner, the same is held to be illegal.

¶21Preventive detention Order No. PITNDPS 48 of 2025 dated 28.07.2025 read with Govt. Order No.

Home/PB-V/1640 of 2025 dated 27.08.2025 are hereby quashed.

¶22The petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty by his release from the concerned Jail wherever he is kept detained, for which purpose the Superintendent of the concerned Jail to release the petitioner forthwith.

¶23Disposed of.

¶24Detention record to be returned back to the counsel representing the respondents.

(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU

30.06.2026

Sneha

Whether the judgment is speaking :

Whether the judgment is reportable :

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on: 23.04.2026 Pronounced on : 30.06.2026 Surjeet Singh …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajdeep Singh Thakur, Advocate Vs UT of J&K and others .…. Respondents Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE