STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Justice Sanjay Dhar of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court while hearing two different habeas corpus petition, dismissed both the petitions and upheld the detention under PITNDPS.
The petitioner, Tahir Hussain Shah, son of Faquir Hussain Shah, resident of Khablan, Tehsil Thanamandi, District Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenue’), has challenged Order No.PITNDPS 21 of 2023 dated July 19, 2023 passed by Divisional Commissioner Jammu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detaining authority’) whereby he has been taken into preventive custody in terms of Section 3 of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PITNDPS Act’).
The petitioner, Rafaqat Ali, son of Mohd. Shafi, resident of Near Sai Baba Mandir, Ward No.12 Devika Udhampur (hereinafter referred to as ‘detenue’), has challenged Order No.PITNDPS 37 of 2023 dated September 14, 2023 issued by Divisional Commissioner Jammu (hereinafter referred to as ‘detaining authority’) whereby he has been taken into preventive custody in terms of Section 3 of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PITNDPS Act’). Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing the petitions, observed that it has been next contended that because the petitioner was already facing trial/investigation in the offences registered against him, therefore, there was no compelling reason for the detaining authority to pass the impugned order of detention. In this regard, as already stated, the detaining authority has recorded that even after being booked in substantive offences, the petitioner is still indulging in illicit traffic of drugs after getting bail from the Court meaning thereby that the detaining authority has, in view of the repeated and continuous criminal activities of the petitioner, felt satisfied that normal criminal law has not deterred the petitioner from indulging in illicit traffic of drugs. It is a trite law that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority cannot be a subject matter of judicial review. Therefore, sufficiency or otherwise of the material for deriving subjective satisfaction is the domain of the detaining authority. The Court cannot sit in appeal or exercise its power of judicial review in this regard.
