Grant of bail does not preclude preventive detention under PITNDPS Act if detaining authority records subjective satisfaction of recidivism.

The petitioner challenged a preventive detention order (No. DIVCOM-“K”/88/2025) dated 23.05.2025, issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.

The order was passed following the petitioner's involvement in two specific criminal cases: FIR No. 65/2019 (recovery of brown sugar, cannabis, and poppy straw) and FIR No. 87/2024 (recovery of 15.5 grams of brown sugar).

The petitioner argued that the detention was unjustified as he had already been granted bail in both cases by competent courts, that the grounds were not explained in a language he understood, and that the detaining authority failed to record proper satisfaction regarding his likelihood of indulging in future prejudicial activities.

1. Whether an order of preventive detention can be validly passed against a person who has already been granted bail in the substantive criminal offenses that form the basis of the detention.

2. Whether the detaining authority complied with procedural safeguards, specifically regarding the communication of grounds in a language understood by the detenue.

3. Whether the court can substitute its own opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority under the PITNDPS Act.

The Court applied Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), which allows for preventive detention to prevent illicit trafficking.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Kamarunnissa v. Union of India (1991) and Union of India v. Paul Manickam (2003), which establish that preventive detention is permissible for a person in custody or on bail provided the authority is aware of the status and records "compelling reasons" or the "likelihood" of the detenue indulging in prejudicial activities upon release.

The court also applied the principle that judicial review in habeas corpus is limited to procedural compliance and the absence of mala fides, rather than an appeal on merits.

The Court reasoned that prosecution and preventive detention operate in different fields—one is punitive for past acts, while the other is precautionary for future conduct.

Upon perusing the records, the Court found that the detaining authority was fully aware of the petitioner’s bail status, as it was explicitly mentioned and considered in the grounds of detention.

Regarding procedural safeguards, the Court noted that the execution report confirmed the grounds were read over to the petitioner in Urdu/Kashmiri.

The Court emphasized that the recurring nature of the petitioner's offenses (2019 and 2024) provided sufficient material for the detaining authority to reach a "subjective satisfaction" that ordinary law was insufficient to curb his activities.

The Court held that the detention order was passed with due application of mind and in conformity with the PITNDPS Act; consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld Detention Order No. DIVCOM-“K”/88/2025.