HC upholds preventive detention of Bandipora man under PIT-NDPS Act

15/09/2026

Jammu, Sep 14: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the preventive detention of a Bandipora resident under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, observing that pendency of criminal proceedings does not by itself make preventive detention illegal.
Justice M A Chowdhary dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Irshad Ahmad Wani of GhatMohalla, Hajin, challenging the detention order passed on February 5, 2026 by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir under Section 3 of the PIT-NDPS Act.
Wani, through advocate Abid Ahmad Pandit, argued that he was already facing prosecution in criminal cases cited in the detention grounds and that ordinary criminal law was sufficient to deal with the allegations. He also alleged violation of the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 22(5).
The administration was represented by Senior AAG Mohsin Qadri, assisted by AC Maha Majeed.
Rejecting the challenge, the High Court said preventive detention and prosecution under ordinary criminal law operate in different fields.
While criminal prosecution concerns culpability for offences already committed, preventive detention is aimed at preventing anticipated prejudicial activities, the court observed.
"The fact that criminal proceedings are pending does not ipso facto render preventive detention illegal," the court said, relying on settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. The court noted that Wani had earlier been booked in FIR No. 10/2023 under Sections 8, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sumbal and was granted bail.
Subsequently, FIR No. 267/2024 under Sections 8, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Bandipora following an alleged recovery of drugs from him, and he again secured bail.
The High Court observed that the Detaining Authority was aware of the criminal cases pending against Wani but had nevertheless reached the satisfaction that his activities indicated a propensity to continue indulging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
It held that the mere availability of ordinary criminal law cannot invalidate a preventive detention order where the material before the authority reasonably indicates the likelihood of continued prejudicial activities.
On the petitioner's reliance on the grant of bail, the court said bail does not create an absolute bar against preventive detention.
What is relevant is whether the Detaining Authority was aware of the bail orders and had considered the circumstances surrounding the detenue's release while recording its subjective satisfaction, it said.
The court also found the grounds of detention sufficiently specific and noted that the material relied upon by the authority had been supplied to the petitioner.
It said Wani had been informed of his right to make a representation but had failed to identify any specific document whose non-supply had prejudiced his rights under Article 22(5).
Justice Chowdhary held that the Detaining Authority had considered the relevant material, the petitioner's antecedents, the pending criminal cases and the circumstances surrounding his release on bail before concluding that preventive detention was necessary to prevent further prejudicial activities.
Finding no ground for interference, the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and upheld the preventive detention order under the PIT-NDPS Act.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty