Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition challenging a preventive detention order passed under Section 3(1), Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS), the central question was whether the detaining authority had applied its mind and recorded separate grounds of detention. The Division Bench of G.S. Sandhawalia*, CJ., and Bipin Chander Negi, J., quashed the PITNDPS detention order, holding that it suffered from non-application of mind. The Court consequently directed that the detenu be released, unless required in any other case.
The Superintendent of Police, Solan had given a proposal regarding the detention of the petitioner, which was accepted by the detaining authority and a three months long detention order was passed on 6 December 2025, concluding that two FIRs were lodged against the petitioner and he was a habitual offender and a notorious drug dealer who had refused to change his ways and the detention would have serious impact in reducing the drug consumption and drug related crimes, as he was still involved in trafficking of NDPS substance.
The petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the FIRs were old, that even after the second FIR the heroin or chitta was of intermediate quantity, and that there was a time-gap of over one and a half years before the detention order was passed, as the second FIR was lodged on 2 March 2024. It was further submitted that the detaining authority merely repeated the Superintendent of Police’s proposal without independently applying its mind.
The Court noted that the proposal and source report showed that the petitioner was still involved in the activities of drug trafficking and there was a live link. However, the Court observed that the record was to the contrary because no FIR was lodged after March 2024 till the detention order, which was a substantially a long period.
The Court relied on Mortuza Hussain Choudhary v. State of Nagaland, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 502, wherein it was observed that:
“the ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority necessarily has to be spelt out after application of mind by way of separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority itself and cannot be by inference from a casual reference to the material placed before such detaining authority or a bald recital to the effect that the detaining authority was ‘satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents’ that the detention of the individuals concerned was necessary.”
Consequently, the Court held that a case was made out for quashing the detention order on account of non-application of mind. The Court, while allowing the petition, quashed the detention order dated 6 December 2025 and directed that the detenu be set free if not required in any other case.
[Ankush Thakur v. State of H.P., Cr.WP No. 31 of 2025, decided on 26-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General.