RAYEES AHMAD HAJAM TH.HIS BROTHER vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (HOME) AND OTHERS

Serial No. 3
Regular Cause list

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
HCP 2/2026
Rayees Ahmad Hajam, Aged 40
S/O Ghulam Mohammad Hajam
R/O Hajam Mohalla Sharshali Khrew
District Pulwama
Through his brother
John Mohammad Hajam, Aged 36 years
S/O Ghulam Mohammad Hajam
R/O Hajam Mohalla Sharshali Khrew
District Pulwama

…Appellant(s)/Petitioners(s)
Through: Mr. Mohammad Ibrahim Wani, Advocate
Vs.

...Respondent(s)
1. Union Territory of Jammu &
Kashmir through
Principal/Secretary, Home Dept.
J&K, Civil Secretariat Srinagar
2. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir,
Srinagar
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police,
Pulwama
Through: Mr. Haris Khan, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE.

JUDGMENT
17.09.2026
ORAL:

1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, for quashment of order of detention bearing No.
“DIVCOM-“K”/161/2025 dated 19.12.2025, passed by respondent No. 2-
Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar [hereinafter referred to as “the
detaining authority”].
2. As the grounds of detention would unfurl, Senior Superintendent of Police
Awantipora [for short “the recommending authority”], submitted a dossier
to the detaining authority alleging inter alia that petitioner had

transformed into a notorious drug peddler. He had become a principal
dealer of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances and developed
contacts with the drug peddlers operative in his area. It was also alleged
that the petitioner being a member of a large drug mafia, was relentlessly
involved in drug trafficking, not only in the local area of his residence, but
also in the surrounding areas and his activities were directly affecting the
health and welfare of the people of that area.
3. Pertinently, the recommending authority by reference to FIR No. 67/2025
under Sections 8/21 NDPS Act of Police Station Khrew, in which
petitioner was admitted to bail by the competent court, has stated that
petitioner by violating one of the bail conditions that he will not indulge in
similar activities is found clandestinely and discretely involved in similar
activities. According to the recommending authority, violation of the said
bail condition could not be agitated before the trial court for cancellation
of bail, which has necessitated his preventive detention.
4. On the basis of this dossier, the detaining authority has come to conclude
that petitioner is a part and active member of a large drug mafia. His
involvement in the FIR under Sections 8/21 NDPS Act is manifestation of
the fact that he has no remorse or realization of ill effects of his activities.
He is supplying drugs against hefty amounts to the gullible youth, which
exposed them to different kinds of immoral and illegal criminal tendencies
and he had adopted the drug trafficking a regular source of his earning.
The detaining authority is of the view that to prevent the petitioner from
further committing the related offences, it was imperative to detain him
under Section 3 of PITNDPS Act.

5. Petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned detention order as also the
grounds of detention inter alia on the following grounds:
A. For that the impugned Order of Detention bearing No. DIVCOM-
"K"/161/2025 dated 19.12.2025, whereby the Detenue has been
detained under Section 08/21 of NDPS Act, does not reflect or show
that while passing the impugned order of detention dated
19.12.2025, the Detaining Authority was aware of the material
relevant facts that:-
i. Detenue was in connection with Case FIR No.67/2025
arrested by the Police Personnel of Police Station Khrew
Pulwama on 10.09.2025;
ii. And was kept in the Police Custody till such time bail was
granted by the Trial Court and accordingly was released on
bail by the Trial Court vide Order dated 27.09.2025 and
made absolute by the Trial Court vide Order dated
10.10.2025.
iii. Right from date of arrest the Detenue, remained in Police
Custody till 27.09.2025 when the Detenue was admitted to
Bail by the Court of law;
iv. And resultantly mandatory in law though, have not been
taken in regard while passing the impugned order of
detention dated 19.12.2025 vitiating thereby the subjective
satisfaction required to be entered by the Detaining Authority
before passing the impugned order of detention dated
19.12.2025;

The impugned Order of Detention bearing No. DIVCOM-
“K"/161/2025 dated 19.12.2025, for the reason of having been
passed in a most mechanical and perfunctory manner depicting
total non-application of the mind on the part of the Detaining
Authority to the relevant material facts, required in law to be taken
into consideration while passing the order of detention, is thus
vitiated in law and rendered illegal to the extent of being non-est in
law and liable to be quashed/interdicted.

B. For that regard being had of the fact that the Detenue remained
lodged initially in the Police Station Khrew and thereafter was
suffering incarceration in Police Station w.e.f. 10.09.2025 and
thereafter the Detenue was released from custody vide Order of the
Court of Competent Jurisdiction dated 27.09.2025 admitting the
Detenue to interim Bail and thereafter made absolute vide Order
dated 10.10.2025, nothing in the so-called grounds of detention
disclose or mention any activity answering any of the features of an
activity prejudicial to the security of the Union Territory within the

meaning and contemplation of Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988,
warranting in law the detention of the Detenue.
The impugned detention order in this view of the matter has clearly
been passed without any warrant or sanction of law and has in fact
been passed in blatant abuse of the power and authority as by law
vests in the Detaining Authority, rendering in sequel thereto the
impugned detention illegal, unconstitutional and thus non-est in
law, therefore, liable to be quashed/interdicted under the
appropriate writ of this Hon'ble Court.
C. For that the so-called grounds of detention are too vague to answer
any of the imperatives of the grounds legally recognized proper and
valid grounds, warranting in law detention under the provisions of
Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988, totally illusory to the extent of
being non-existent, as apart from the above titled FIR where the
petitioner was alleged to have been involved in a small quantity of
contraband item and apart from the above said FIR, the petitioner
till date has neither been found involved in any subversive activity
no any FIR is pending against the petitioner in any court of law, as
such can be said for the sake of argument as a first time offender,
rendering in sequel thereto the impugned Order of Detention fraud
not only on the power and authority as by law vests in the
Detaining Authority but also on the constitutionally guaranteed
rights of the Detenue.
D. For that in the attendant facts and circumstances of the case
detention of the Detenue is against law and the constitution, and
above all the Detenue being the head of his family which includes
wife and minor child and in case he will continue to remain in the
illegal detention, it would adversely affect his family particularly
wife and minor child and also social life, coupled with the fact that
the said action of putting behind bars the Detenue is only to attain a
collateral purpose wholly unauthorized by law and the Statute and
in sequel thereto is tainted with the vice of malice in law.
The impugned Order of Detention bearing No. DIVCOM-
"K"/161/2025 dated 19.12.2025 on this count as well is rendered
illegal to the extent of being non-est in law and therefore, liable to
be quashed/interdicted under the appropriate writ of this Hon'ble
Court.
E. For that the impugned Order of Detention bearing No. DIVCOM
"K"/161/2025 dated 19.12.2025 on the face of it suffers from the
vice of having been passed ultra-vires the power and authority as
by law vests in the Detaining Authority and in sequel thereto is
rendered void ab-initio and non est in law and therefore, legally

unsustainable and liable to be quashed/ interdicted under the
appropriate writ of this Hon'ble Court.
F. For that the utter vagueness with which the so-called grounds of
detention are riddled and thus unintelligible, rendering it almost
impossible for the Detenue to make an effective representation
against the impugned Order of Detention, violating thereby the
constitutionally guaranteed right of effective representation against
the impugned Order of Detention bearing No. DIVCOM-
“K”/161/2025 dated 19.12.2025.
The impugned Order of Detention bearing No. DIVCOM-
"Κ"/161/2025 dated 19.12.2025 on this count as well is rendered
illegal and unconstitutional and thus non-est in law and liable to be
quashed/interdicted under the appropriate writ of this Hon'ble
Court.
G. For that the so-called material referred to and relied upon in the
grounds of detention has not been supplied to the Detenue as is
mandatorily required to be supplied as a matter of compliance with
the constitutional mandate of the Constitution of India, thereby
denuding and depriving the Detenue to make effective
representation to the Advisory Board against the fraudulent
detention violating thereby the fundamental right guaranteed to the
Detenue by law and the Constitution.
The impugned order of detention dated 19.12.2025 on this count as
well is rendered illegal and unconstitutional and thus non-est in
law and liable to be quashed/interdicted under the appropriate writ
of this Hon'ble Court .

6. The plea has been opposed on the other side by the respondents, primarily
on the ground that no constitutional, legal or statutory right of the
petitioner is found to have been infringed.
7. It is contention of the respondents that the detaining authority, on
examination of the dossier, has passed the impugned order strictly in
accordance with the procedure provided under PITNDPS Act. Since the
petitioner, after getting bail from the concerned court was found involved
in similar activities of illicit trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and ordinary
law of the land failed to deter him, the detaining authority has come to
conclude that it was imperative to detain him under the relevant

provisions of PITNDPS Act. All the relevant documents, including the
grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu against a proper receipt
and the grounds of detention were not only read over, but explained in the
language he understood. Respondents have prayed dismissal of the
petition.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the detention
record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds urged in the
memo of petition and learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to
the grounds of detention and dossier, has reiterated the stand taken by the
respondents therein.
10. The admitted position of fact emerging from the record is that petitioner
came to be apprehended by the police in FIR No. 67/2025 under Section
8/21 of NDPS Act of Police Station Khrew on 10.09.2025 and at the time
of arrest, 1.3 gm of Herion came to be recovered from his possession. He
was admitted to bail by the competent court.
11. According to the detaining authority, the petitioner in violation of the bail
condition that he will not indulge in similar activities has been
clandestinely and discretely involved in similar activities, which
according to the detaining authority, could not be agitated before the trial
court for cancellation of bail. One fails to understand, as to what prevents
the prosecution or the Union Territory to approach the trial court for
cancellation of bail, or the higher court to assail the bail order, if petitioner
was found involved in similar activities.
12. Be that as it may, allegations against the petitioner are that, he was an
active member of a large drug mafia, involved in drug trafficking, not

only in his area, but at the district level and beyond the district. It is also
alleged that petitioner is supplying drugs against hefty amounts to the
gullible youth, who are exposed to immoral and illegal criminal
tendencies. It is also allegation against the petitioner that he has adopted
the drug trafficking as a regular source of his earning and has been
motivating and influencing the youth into the drug consumption.
13. On first blush, the dossier and the grounds of detention would throw an
impression that petitioner is a hardcore criminal involved in drug peddling
on a large scale. However, if grounds of detention are carefully glanced
over, it is clear that allegations are vague and cannot form the basis to take
him under the preventive detention. The detaining authority has failed to
consider the allegations against the petitioner in the correct perspective
that neither the screening committee nor the recommending authority have
furnished specific details, as to the drug mafia the petitioner is a member
of, to whom the petitioner has been supplying the drugs against hefty
amounts, how & in what manner is the drug trafficking a regular source of
his earning and how he is motivating & influencing the young minds into
drug consumption.
14. The allegations attributed to the petitioner, on the face of it, is an ordinary
law and order problem, which should have been tackled under the relevant
penal laws. Petitioner is found involved in an FIR registered in 2025 and
if he was found involved in repeated activities, he should have been
apprehended by the police agencies for such activities, allowing the
ordinary law to take its course.
15. It is trite in law that where the ordinary law of land is adequate to deal
with the criminal activities of an individual, resort to the Preventive

Detention is illegal and unconstitutional. Conduct of the detaining
authority exercising such a vast jurisdiction, ought to be reasonable and in
tune with the concept of justice and fairness. In other words, it is the rule
of law, which should dictate the detaining authority to act in a manner,
which is fair and reasonable, having regard to the concept of fundamental
right to life and liberty, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Personal liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed on vague and
dogmatic assertions of the executive.
16. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed and petitioner is
directed to be immediately released from the detention, provided he is not
involved in any other case.
17. Detention record, after perusal, has been returned to learned counsel for
the respondents in the open court.
(RAJESH SEKHRI)
JUDGE

Srinagar:
17.09.2026
Adil Ismail

Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Yes
 Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes