Preventive Detention Cannot Overreach Bail: J&K and Ladakh High Court Quashes PIT-NDPS Order

The detenu has been held in District Jail, Udhampur since 10.01.2026 under the PIT NDPS Act, 1988 (para 1). On a dossier of 11.12.2025 from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba, the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu ordered his detention on 17.12.2025, citing three NDPS cases: FIR No. 46/2023, in which he is on bail during trial; FIR No. 60/2023, in which he was challaned in absentia; and FIR No. 173/2025, in which a challenge to his bail failed by a court order of 04.12.2025, after which the police turned to preventive detention (paras 3-4, 8-10). After the Advisory Board's opinion, one year's detention was confirmed until 09.01.2027 (para 13). His wife filed the habeas corpus petition on 15.05.2026 (paras 2-3).

Examining the dossier and the grounds of detention, Rahul Bharti J. formed the impression that the detention was a counter-action to the ordinary criminal courts' grant of bail: the Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba meant to overreach the courts that had granted bail, without taking the trouble to seek its cancellation before the same court (para 21). If the police lacked the conviction to seek cancellation of bail in FIR No. 46/2023 and FIR No. 173/2025, the Court was left puzzled as to the factual basis on which the detenu was treated as deserving preventive detention (para 22). The grounds also said nothing on whether he had ever been arrested, or had evaded arrest, in FIR No. 60/2023. When the order was passed on 17.12.2025, neither the police officer nor the detaining authority knew whether he was a declared absconder in that case or had been arrested and granted bail (para 23). The Court called this an alarming factual fallacy that left the entire exercise a serious suspect, and asked how a man granted bail in FIR No. 173/2025 could be held absent in FIR No. 60/2023 (para 23). That glaring omission made the detention illegal (para 24).