Court Finds Suppression of Acquittal Facts and Lack of Proximate Evidence for Future Criminal Activities
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the preventive detention order against Deepak Kumar @ Binni Gujjar, who was detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The court found that the detention order was vitiated due to the suppression of vital facts concerning the acquittal of the petitioner in one of the narcotic cases and the reliance on stale material without credible evidence of future criminal activities.
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, was detained for a year based on orders dated March 12, 2025, and May 28, 2025, issued by the respondent authorities. These orders were predicated on Kumar's alleged involvement in multiple cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. However, crucial to the court's decision was the fact that Kumar had been acquitted in one of these cases, a fact that was not considered by the detaining authority.
The court, presided by Justice Suvir Sehgal, emphasized that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure that requires a live and proximate link between past conduct and potential future criminal activities. The judgment highlighted that the last criminal case against Kumar was registered in 2021, rendering the material used for his detention outdated. The court concluded that the detention order was based on mere apprehensions without substantive evidence, violating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding preventive detention.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Amit Agnihotri, argued that the detention was unwarranted as Kumar was already in custody for another case and had been acquitted in the critical NDPS case. The state, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Deepender Singh and others, contended that Kumar had been involved in illegal activities while on parole, justifying the detention. However, the court found these claims insufficiently substantiated.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on the necessity of credible evidence and the importance of considering all relevant facts before exercising preventive detention powers, safeguarding individuals' rights against arbitrary state actions.
Bottom Line:
Preventive detention under PITNDPS Act must be based on credible and proximate evidence of future criminal activities, not solely on past conduct or vague apprehensions. Suppression of vital facts by sponsoring authorities vitiates detention orders.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, 1959
Deepak Kumar @ Binni Gujjar v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2862691
