news details |
|
|
| HC Uphold PSA in illegal trade of narcotics | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, June 10: Justice Rajnesh Oswal of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court uphold the detention under PITNDPS of Mohd. Iqbal Khandey S/O Bashir Ahmed Khandey R/O Keshwan, Tehsil and District Kishtwar (J&K).
While upholding the detention under PITNDPS, Justice Rajnesh Oswal after hearing Adv Irfan Khan for the detenue whereas AAG Amit Gupta for the UT, observed that the recovery of different types of narcotic drugs from the petitioner makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has indulged in illegal sale of drugs and the apprehension of the respondent No.2 that the activities of the petitioner pose serious threat to the health and welfare of the people, cannot be held to be unfounded and unjustified.
It is worthwhile to mention here that petitioner has been detained by the respondent No. 2 vide order No. PITNDPS 31 of 2023 dated 02.09.2023 issued under Section 3 of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as „the PITNDPS Act‟).
Justice Rajnesh Oswal while dismissing the petition, observed that the petitioner did not mend his illegal activities and again on 05.02.2023, 52 grams of chitta and 123 grams of poppy straw were recovered from the petitioner regarding which FIR No. 20/2023 under Section 8/20/21/22/25/27/29 was registered with the Police Station, Kishtwar against him. The petitioner was released on bail on 06.07.2023 and the order of detention has been passed on 02.09.2023.
The gap between the last FIR registered against the petitioner and the order of detention is not so long that the live and proximate link between the order of detention and grounds for detaining the petitioner, has snapped.
The DDRs, though vague and bereft of necessary details, have been prepared in quick succession but would not have any effect on the validity of the order of detention.
The contention of the petitioner that order of grant of bail ought to have been challenged by the respondents instead of detaining the petitioner is also not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner does not fall within the category of „commercial quantity‟ and because of inapplicability of the Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner has been able to obtain bail and any challenge thrown to the order of bail would not have met with success at all. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
