Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging a preventive detention order issued under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The detention order, issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, was directed against the petitioner, Monu @ Sandeep @ Rickey, based on his alleged involvement in multiple cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed that the detaining authority had adequately demonstrated the necessity of the order, considering the petitioner’s criminal record and likelihood of engaging in further illicit trafficking upon release.

The petitioner had challenged the detention order dated February 22, 2024, on multiple grounds, including its reliance on pending criminal cases, alleged failure to establish a proximate link between past incidents and future threats, and violation of constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5). However, the court found that the detaining authority had applied its mind and was justified in passing the order. It was recorded that the petitioner had a long history of criminal involvement, including three cases under the NDPS Act and a total of 109 criminal cases since 1997.

Also Read:Child’s Well-Being”: Supreme Court Disallows Mother’s Presence During Father’s Visitation Rights

The detention order was based on the petitioner’s alleged involvement in the following cases:

1. FIR No. 14/2022, registered on February 17, 2022, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at P.S. Crime Branch, Outer District, Delhi. The prosecution alleged that 500 grams of heroin were recovered from the petitioner’s residence, leading to his arrest. Subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the presence of diacetylmorphine and other substances. The charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Rohini Courts, and multiple bail applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed.

2. FIR No. 369/2020, registered on August 9, 2020, under Sections 21, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act at P.S. Aman Vihar, Delhi. The prosecution contended that a co-accused, Arjun @ Golu, was apprehended with 9.17 grams of heroin and had disclosed that he obtained the substance from the petitioner. The forensic examination confirmed the presence of narcotic substances. The petitioner was arrested on August 26, 2020, and was later granted interim bail before his application was ultimately dismissed.

3. FIR No. 111/2003, registered on March 4, 2003, under Sections 21, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act at P.S. Janak Puri (West), Delhi. The petitioner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, which he had already served.

The petitioner argued that his past conviction was too remote to form the basis of preventive detention, and the pending trials in the other two cases could not justify such a measure. The detention order was also challenged on the grounds that the petitioner was already in judicial custody, and the detaining authority failed to establish a real possibility of his release.

The High Court examined the detention order and judicial precedents on preventive detention. The court observed that the detaining authority was aware of the petitioner’s custody status and had considered the likelihood of his release on bail before passing the order. It was noted:

"A detention order can validly be passed even in the case of a person who is already in custody. In such a case, it must appear from the grounds that the authority was aware that the detenu was already in custody."

The court referred to Union of India v. Ankit Ashok Jalan, (2020) 16 SCC 185, and G. Reddeiah v. Govt. of A.P., (2012) 2 SCC 389, to reaffirm that preventive detention serves a different purpose from punitive action and can be justified if the detaining authority is satisfied that the detenu is likely to engage in prejudicial activities upon release.

The court recorded that the petitioner had filed repeated bail applications, the last one being dismissed just three days before the detention order was passed. The court found this sufficient to establish a proximate link between the order and the apprehended threat. It was stated:

"The apprehension of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order is rightfully based on cogent grounds of the likelihood of the petitioner securing bail and being released."

The court further addressed the petitioner’s contention regarding the non-supply of certain dossier records and additional criminal cases mentioned in the counter affidavit. It held that such references in the counter affidavit were supplementary justifications rather than essential grounds for detention and, therefore, did not vitiate the order.

Also Read: "The Tribunal Ought to Have First Decided the Maintainability Issue": Calcutta High Court Dismisses Revision Against DRAT’s Remand Order in SARFAESI Dispute

Based on its findings, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the detention order. The court concluded that the detaining authority had exercised its jurisdiction correctly and that the petitioner’s preventive detention was justified under the PITNDPS Act. It was stated:

"From all these facts and circumstances, it can be said that the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with the cogent material that there is a likelihood of release of the detenu and in view of his antecedent activities, he must be detained to prevent him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances."

The court also noted that the period of detention had elapsed and that no fresh proposal had been received for an extension.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Mehta and Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocates

For Union of India:  Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Mr. Ayush Tanwar and Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Advocates

Case Title: Monu @ Sandeep @ Rickey v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1593-DB
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 2743/2024
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

[Read/Download order]