Jammu Kashmir High Court Orders Release of Kathua Man Held Under PIT NDPS Act | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed the preventive detention of a Kathua resident booked under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS), observing that ordinary criminal law was sufficient to deal with the allegations against him.

Justice Rajesh Sekhri passed the order on May 7, 2026, while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Darshan Singh, 35, a resident of Galak (Tardal), Billawar in Kathua district.

The petition challenged detention order No. PITNDPS No.53/2025 dated August 13, 2025, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, under which the petitioner had been lodged in Central Jail Kot Bhalwal, Jammu.

The petitioner was represented by MK Bhardwaj along with advocate Gagan Kohli, while the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir was represented by Monika Kohli along with advocate Nisha Kangotra.

According to the case record, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, had submitted a dossier against the petitioner alleging his involvement in drug peddling activities. The dossier referred to two FIRs registered at Billawar Police Station under the NDPS Act.

In FIR No. 04/2025, police allegedly recovered 1.70 grams of heroin from the petitioner, while in FIR No. 106/2025, 4.63 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered. Both cases were stated to be under investigation at the time the detention order was issued.

The petitioner challenged the detention on multiple grounds, including alleged non-application of mind by the detaining authority, failure to provide translated copies of documents, and the argument that preventive detention could not be invoked when ordinary criminal law was already in operation and the petitioner had secured bail in the FIRs.

The High Court, after examining the detention record, observed that the petitioner had been supplied the detention material comprising 62 leaves and that the contents had been explained to him in Hindi and Dogri. The court, therefore, rejected the argument regarding non-supply or non-explanation of documents.

However, the court found merit in the contention that the allegations did not amount to disturbance of “public order” warranting preventive detention.

In the judgment, Justice Sekhri observed, “If ordinary law of the land is competent to deal with criminal activities of an individual, recourse to the provisions of preventive detention laws, shall be illegal.”

The court further noted that the alleged offences involved small quantities of contraband and both cases were still under investigation.

“It does not lie in the mouth of the detaining authority to say that petitioner is found in continuous illegal activities of drug peddling,” the court said.

The High Court further held that, “Allegations against the petitioner may tantamount to a law and order problem but they certainly do not fall within category of ‘public order’.”

Emphasising the constitutional safeguards against preventive detention, the court observed that a person “involved in a couple of criminal activities only cannot be put under preventive detention if ordinary law of land is competent to deal with such activities.”

Allowing the petition, the court quashed the detention order and directed authorities to release the petitioner “forthwith from preventive custody provided he is not involved in any other case.”