Haseena Khatoon @Bajji @Sana vs Union Of India & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29.07.2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 1720/2026
HASEENA KHATOON @BAJJI @SANA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Mr. Ankit
Choudhary and Ms. Falguni
Katiyal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC
with Mr. Anubhav Upadhyay,
Advocate for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC
(Criminal) with Mr. Kshitiz
Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms.
Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Nitish
Dhawan, Advocates.
Insp. Shiv Kumar and SI
Krishna, ANTF (Crime
Branch).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the detention order
bearing no. U-11011/04/2026-PITNDPS, dated 26.02.2026
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 5
W.P.(CRL) 1720/2026
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2026
17:19
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned Detention Order’] passed by
the respondent no. 1 under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘PITNDPS Act’], directing that the
petitioner be detained and kept in the Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai
with a view of preventing her from engaging in illicit trafficking of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in future.
2. Though the petition challenges the Detention Order also on the
merits, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does
not press the same in this petition as the said order has been ratified by
the Advisory Board, and pursuant to the ratification of the Advisory
Board in the hearing which took place on 04.06.2026, the respondent
no. 1 has now confirmed the Detention Order passed against the
petitioner vide order No. U-11012/09/2026-PITNDPS dated
15.06.2026. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that as far as the challenge on merits is concerned, liberty be
reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition challenging the same.
3. The limited challenge of the petitioner in the present petition
that remains now, is to the impugned Detention Order directing the
petitioner to be detained and kept in the Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai. The learned counsel submits that the impugned Detention
Order or the grounds on which the same has been passed, do not
reflect any reason for transferring the petitioner to Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai. He submits that, in fact, the transfer of the petitioner
to Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai would make the detention order
punitive, inasmuch as, the petitioner would be away from her family
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 5
W.P.(CRL) 1720/2026
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2026
17:19
and due to language barriers, will also be suffering mentally. He
submits that though such a power may be vested in the Central
Government under Section 5 of the PITNDPS Act, the same has to be
exercised in a reasonable manner and for reasons to be recorded; the
same are lacking in the present case.
4. We find merit in the above submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Section 5 of the PITNDPS Act reads as under:-
“ 5. Power to regulate place and conditions of
detention.-Every person in respect of whom a
detention order has been made shall be liable-
(a) to be detained in such place and
under such conditions including
conditions as to maintenance, interviews
of communication with others, discipline
and punishment for breaches of
discipline, as the appropriate
Government may, by general or special
order specify; and
(b) to be removed from one place of
detention to another place of detention,
whether within the same State or in
another State by order of the
appropriate Government:
Provided that no order shall be made by a
State Government under clause (b) for the
removal of a person from one State to another
State except with the consent of the
Government of that other State.
”
6. Section 5(a) of the PITNDPS Act empowers the appropriate
Government, that is, the Central Government, to direct that any person
in respect of whom the detention order has been made, be detained at
such place and under such conditions, including conditions as to
maintenance, interviews or communication with others, discipline and
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(CRL) 1720/2026
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2026
17:19
punishment for breaches of discipline, as it may specify “by general
or special order” . In the present case, there is a special order passed
with respect to the petitioner herein, directing that she shall be
detained and kept at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. However, the
impugned order or the Grounds of Detention do not reflect any reason
for passing such special order. In absence of reasons, the direction for
the petitioner to be kept at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, when the
Detention Order has been passed at Delhi and the petitioner is a
resident of Delhi, would make such direction arbitrary and
unreasonable.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned Detention
Order, insofar as it has directed the detention of the petitioner at
Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai, is quashed.
8. As the Detention Order has been confirmed by the order dated
15.06.2026, we direct that instead of releasing the petitioner, the
petitioner shall be brought back and be detained in a prison in Delhi.
9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the challenge to the Detention Order, and we reserve liberty
to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law in an
appropriate proceeding.
10. The order be complied with within a period of two weeks from
today.
11. The petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
12. We are informed that inadvertently appearance of Mr. Premtosh
K. Mishra, CGSC, appearing for the respondent no. 1, was not
recorded in our order dated 26.05.2026. The said order shall therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 5
W.P.(CRL) 1720/2026
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2026
17:19
be deemed to include the name of Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC, as
appearing for the respondent no. 1.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
JULY 29, 2026/ vd/sk/pb
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 5
W.P.(CRL) 1720/2026
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:30.07.2026
17:19