MAKHAN DIN vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS

Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU


Reserved on : 23.04.2026
Pronounced on : 03.06.2026.
Uploaded on : 04.06.2026
HCP No. 156/2025



Makhan Din, Age 45 years,
S/o Sh. Hakam Din alias Hukam Din,
R/o Narsoo, Tehsil Chenani, District Udhampur
at present lodged Central Jail, Kotbalwal, Jammu.

…..Petitioner


Through: Mr. Rajnesh Singh Parihar, Advocate

Vs


1. Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Department, Civil
Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.
3. Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur.
4. Superintendent, Central Jail, Kotbalwal, Jammu.

.…. Respondents


Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT



01. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
for the respondents.
02. Perused the writ pleadings.

HCP No. 156/2025 Page 1 of 6

03. The detention record produced also scanned
thoroughly.
04. The petitioner came forward with the present writ
petition filed on 03.11.2025 , being aggrieved of his
preventive detention custody inflicted upon him by an order
No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025 dated 19.07.2025 passed by the
respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Jammu in
exercise of powers under section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1988 (in short “PIT NDPS Act, 1988” ) read with SRO 247
dated 27.07.1988 upon finding the petitioner’s alleged
reported activities to be falling within the mischief of section
3 of PIT NDPS Act, 1988.
05. The petitioner came to be taken into custody on
27.09.2025 and confined to the Central Jail Kot Bhalwal,
Jammu.
06. The case for preventive detention of the petitioner
was put into process by the respondent No. 3 – Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur, who vide his
letter No. Conf./PITNDPS/536-39 dated 15.07.2025
submitted a dossier of alleged state of activities of the

HCP No. 156/2025 Page 2 of 6

petitioner reckoning which the petitioner was held to be a
case for suffering preventive detention under PIT NDPS Act,
1988.
07. In his dossier, the respondent No. 3 – Sr.
Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur exhibited the
petitioner’s criminal and bad antecedents by reference to FIR
No. 188/2024 under section 8/21/22 of Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of the Police Station
Chenani followed by four Daily-Diary Entries made from
05.02.2025 to 19.06.2025 all by the Police Station Chenani.
08. In the dossier, the fact of release of the petitioner
on bail by reference to FIR No. 188/2024 also came to be
mentioned.
09. Acting on said dossier, the respondent No. 2 –
Divisional Commissioner, Jammu felt persuaded that a case
was made out to order the preventive detention of the
petitioner and, thus, formulated the grounds of detention to
hold that on the basis of the reported state of activities of the
petitioner, he deserves to suffer preventive detention and,
accordingly, passed the detention order No. PITNDPS 46 of
2025 dated 19.07.2025 .

HCP No. 156/2025 Page 3 of 6

10. The petitioner has come assailing the detention on
number of grounds as set out in para 16 (a) to (l).
11. Highlight ground of challenge is the fact that before
service of the dossier from the end of the respondent No. 3 –
Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur to the
respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner, Udhampur by
virtue of communication No. Conf./PITNDPS/536-39 dated
15.07.2025 , the Prosecution had solicited rejection of the
petitioner’s bail granted in FIR No. 188/2024 by an
application made on 03.02.2025 before the court of
Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge under NDPS Act),
Udhampur which came to be rejected by virtue of an order
dated 05.04.2025 .
12. In the entire dossier, there is not even a whisper of
any such exercise undertaken for seeking cancellation of the
bail in favour of the petitioner. Thus, when by the time of
passing of order dated 05.04.2025 , the respondent No. 3 –
Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP), Udhampur was yet to
frame his dossier against the petitioner but still omitted to
bear mention of such an important aspect related to suffering
rejection of cancellation of bail qua the accused, then

HCP No. 156/2025 Page 4 of 6

obviously the respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner,
Jammu was not fully fed with the facts.
13. While on one hand cancellation of bail did not
succeed but on other hand the petitioner came to be
subjected to preventive detention custody is a situation
which is antithetical to each other.

14. In fact, from the perusal of detention record
produced for the inspection of this Court, this Court finds
that the detention record bears an application No. 142/S-
1/PSC dated 31.01.2025 moved for the purpose of
cancellation of bail but still said aspect was not made a
mention in the dossier is a pointer to the fact that the
respondent No. 3 – Sr. Superintendent of Police (SSP),
Udhampur did not want to highlight the aspect that exercise
for seeking cancellation of bail has resulted in failure.
15. In the light of the aforesaid serious lacuna
attending the processing of the case against the petitioner for
his preventive detention, this Court finds that the preventive
detention imposed upon the petitioner deserves to be
quashed and is, accordingly, quashed.

HCP No. 156/2025 Page 5 of 6

16. The detention order No. PITNDPS 46 of 2025
dated 19.07.2025 read with confirmation order No. Home-
PB-V/1951 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025 are hereby quashed.
The petitioner is directed to be restored to his personal liberty
with immediate effect by the Superintendent of the concerned
jail.

17. Disposed of .
18. Detention record to be returned back to the counsel
representing the respondents.

(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
03.06.2026
Muneesh



Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes / No

Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes / No

HCP No. 156/2025 Page 6 of 6

Muneesh Sharma
2026.06.04 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document