The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in a recent ruling, has emphasized that the degree of evidence required to justify preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1998 (PITNDPS Act), is considerably lower than what might be needed under other detention laws.
This significant observation was made by a division bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Puneet Gupta while dismissing an appeal against the preventive detention of an individual involved in repeated drug offenses.
The court added, “For detention under this Act, the sense of anxiety and seriousness on the part of the State is far greater than what is under other preventive detention statutes. All preventive detention statutes cannot be placed on the same pedestal when it comes to ascertain “subjective satisfaction” of the detaining authority. While far greater material and evidence may be required to form a subjective satisfaction under other detention laws, the requirement and degree of evidence in material required to form a subjective satisfaction under this Act may be far lesser depending upon the circumstances”.
Background of the Case:
The case in question involved Gourav Khajuria, who was detained under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act following his involvement in two separate incidents where small quantities of heroin were recovered from his possession. The first incident occurred on June 19, 2022, leading to his arrest. The second incident took place on June 5, 2023, resulting in another FIR. Despite being granted bail in both cases, the detaining authorities, considering the likelihood of his continued involvement in drug trafficking, ordered his preventive detention.
Though Khajuria challenged his detention before the Single bench the same dismissed his plea. In appeal, the appellant challenged the detention arguing that there was an absence of a “live link” between his alleged activities and the detention order, highlighting a delay between his release on bail and the issuance of the detention order.
The counsel further contended that the quantities of heroin involved were small and did not justify preventive detention. Additionally, reliance was placed on precedents set by the Supreme Court, particularly the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik vs. State of Tripura & Ors., where delay in detention was seen as breaking the live link between the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction and the detainee’s activities.
In its judgment, the High Court examined the materials presented before the detaining authority and the timeline of events leading to the appellant’s detention and acknowledged the concerns raised by the appellant but ultimately upheld the detention.
The Court noted that the appellant was involved in similar offenses within a short period, indicating a pattern of behavior that justified preventive measures. The fact that the quantity of heroin was small did not mitigate the potential danger posed by the appellant’s continued activities, the bench underscored.
“.. the fact that the appellant after being bailed out in the first case was again arrested and from his person the same contraband of different quantity was seized in 2023 also, reflects that the appellant has tendency to commit the offence of similar nature”, the bench pointed.
The Court underscored that while greater material and evidence might be necessary to justify detention under other laws, the PITNDPS Act, given its focus on preventing drug trafficking, allows for a lower threshold of evidence depending on the circumstances. The Court held that the material before the detaining authority was sufficient to form a subjective satisfaction that the appellant’s detention was necessary for the safety and well-being of society.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that there is no fixed rule on how much material is needed to justify detention under the PITNDPS Act, as it heavily depends on the specific facts of each case and the Court’s role is to ensure that the detaining authority’s satisfaction is not based on illusory or fanciful grounds, which was not the case here.
Reflecting on the preventive nature of the PITNDPS Act, the Court highlighted that the law’s purpose is to prevent future offenses rather than punish past ones. Thus, the standard for detention under this law differs from that in a criminal trial, where evidence must meet a higher threshold, the court maintained.
In conclusion, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court found that the preventive detention of Khajuria was justified under the PITNDPS Act, and the detention order did not warrant interference.
Case Title: Gourav Khajuria Vs UT of J&K
Citation :2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 227
