Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj set aside the State’s preventive detention orders and directed that the petitioner be released if not required in any other matter. The case concerned the State’s decision to detain the petitioner under the preventive-detention framework for alleged involvement in repeated drug-related offences. While examining the material relied on by the authorities, the Court noted that the State’s assumption that the petitioner generated illicit income from drug trafficking on the basis of his ownership of two vehicles rested on incorrect and biased information. Concluding that constitutional safeguards had not been observed, the Court held the detention and its extension unsustainable.

The matter concerned the preventive detention of an individual under an order issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 21.06.2025, directing detention for three months. The detention was executed on 28.06.2025. The basis for the detention was the registration of five cases against the detenu under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and a recorded conviction in one of them. The State invoked Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act) to justify the preventive custody, stating that detention would reduce drug-related crimes and sever the detenu’s association with alleged criminal networks.

Also Read: Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act | Landlord Need Not File Fresh Section 12(1) Application In Tenant’s Appeal Against Eviction: Supreme Court

During the pendency of the petition, the advisory mechanism reviewed the detention, and the Himachal Pradesh State Advisory Board passed an order on 11.08.2025 resulting in the extension of the detention period beyond 28.09.2025. Acting on the Board’s advice, the State passed a fresh detention order dated 23.09.2025, which was also later challenged by way of an amended petition. The petitioner argued that no opportunity was given to file a representation against the initial detention, and that the State and Advisory Board relied on a Source Report claiming involvement in drug peddling and vehicle ownership without verifying financial records.

The State justified the detention on the basis of the history of NDPS cases and the Source Report. The petitioner countered with documentation showing that both vehicles mentioned in the report were financed, one in the petitioner’s name and the other in the mother’s name, asserting that the material relied upon by the State conveyed incorrect inferences.

The Bench recorded that “no opportunity as such [was] given for filing a representation when the first detention order itself was passed.” It further noted that “the said aspect also missed the notice of the State Advisory Board, while recommending his continued detention.”

The Court examined the Source Report relied upon by the State and observed that it mentioned the petitioner’s father’s shop, the vehicles in possession of the petitioner and his mother, and inferred that the petitioner had no legal source of income. The Court stated that the State “was able to convince the Advisory Board as such that the petitioner was indulging in drug peddling in a large extent and he was also having no source of legal income and also owned two vehicles and therefore, inference as such was drawn that he was generating funds from the said trade of drugs.”

The Bench took note of the documents placed by the petitioner to establish vehicle financing and recorded that “both the vehicles were financed from Mahindra Finance… and therefore, impression given as such was that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities and was generating a large amount of income, seems to be based on a biased information given by the State.”

The Court referred to Article 22(5) of the Constitution and the five-judge bench judgment in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel to state the mandatory nature of the opportunity to make a representation. It also recorded the excerpts from Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, noting the Apex Court’s view that “preventive detention is, by nature, repugnant to democratic ideas… and if the ordinary law of the land can deal with a situation, recourse to a preventive detention law will be illegal.”

The Bench also referenced its earlier decision in Sachin Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh where preventive detention was set aside after the Advisory Board treated intermediate quantity as commercial quantity. After assessing the record, the Bench stated, “We are not in a position to agree with the advice given by the Advisory Board keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.”

Also Read: Mother’s Pension Not Sustainable Livelihood: HP High Court Allows Eviction, Upholds Landlord’s Right To Use Own Commercial Premises

The Bench held that “the present petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we quash the detention orders dated 11.08.2025 and 23.09.2025 passed by the State and the Advisory Board, respectively on the ground that there is violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner. The petitioner be set free, if not required in any other case. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunny Rawat, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General

Case Title: Uved Khan v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:37881
Case Number: Cr.WP No. 15 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj