Delhi High Court Sets Aside Preventive Detention Order Under PITNDPS For Lack Of Cogent Material

A bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard a petition under Article 226 challenging the Detention Order dated 20.03.2025 passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The petitioner, Validad Khan @ Mullah, contested his detention on the ground that the order was preventive in form but punitive in effect and deficient in material and procedure.

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Detention Order, holding that the Competent Authority had failed to record cogent and tangible material to justify preventive detention of a person already in judicial custody. The Court noted that "the object of a preventive detention order is not to punish but to prevent a person from acting in a prejudicial manner" and that, where the detenu was in custody, the authority must satisfy itself on the likelihood of release and subsequent re-offending on the basis of concrete material. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We must remain mindful of the fact that the object of a preventive detention order is not to punish but to prevent a person from acting in a prejudicial manner. Where the person concerned is already in custody at the time when the detention order is passed, the Competent Authority must, on the basis of cogent and tangible material, and not on mere apprehension, arrive at a conclusion that such person is likely to be released on bail and that, upon such release, he would continue to indulge in prejudicial activities.” The Court further found that the Detention Order relied on extraneous material, failed to explain the relevance of FIRs against family members, did not supply relied‑upon documents in the language known to the petitioner, and contained unexplained delays between the triggering events and the order’s passage and execution. For these reasons the Court concluded that the Detention Order "cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside."

Background

The petitioner faced three NDPS-linked criminal cases: FIR No. 13/2013 in which he was convicted and sentenced to 12 years' RI (sentence later suspended), FIR No. 223/2019 pending trial with bail granted, and FIR No. 43/2024 in which he remained in judicial custody. The Detention Order alleged habitual involvement in illicit trafficking, referenced seizures aggregating 21,935 grams of heroin and other drugs across various cases, and referred to alleged criminal involvement of several family members. The Detaining Authority recorded that the petitioner posed a "threat to innocent person[s] of the locality/State/Nation" and concluded that detention under Section 3(1) PITNDPS was necessary to prevent future illicit trafficking.

Counsel for the petitioner challenged the order on multiple grounds: the detenu was already in custody and had not applied for bail; the authority did not demonstrate any real likelihood of imminent release; relied‑upon documents (including a co-accused’s bail rejection) were not supplied in Urdu, the only language known to the petitioner; the grounds mixed in extraneous family‑related FIRs without explaining their relevance; the computation of the total seized quantity was unexplained; and there were inordinate delays in initiating, passing and executing the detention. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court and High Court authorities including Roshini Devi v. State of Telangana, Jaseela Shaji, Sushanta Kumar Banik and Ameena Begum.

The respondents defended the detention as preventive, argued a pattern of re-offending on release, explained administrative steps leading to the order and its execution, and sought to attribute seized quantities to co-accused as well. The State Advisory Board (PITNDPS), Tamil Nadu, had confirmed the detention on 25.06.2025.

Rejecting the State’s contentions, the High Court found lack of specific material demonstrating likelihood of release and re-offending, reliance on unexplained extraneous material, violation of Article 22(5) by failure to supply documents in the detenu’s language in a timely manner, and unjustified delay. The Court quashed the Detention Order dated 20.03.2025 and directed that the petitioner shall no longer be detained pursuant to it; it confined its observations to the petition and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent of the concerned jail. There were no orders as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 2541/2025
Case Title: VALIDAD KHAN @ MULLAH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sia Das and Ms. Ria Das, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, CGSC with Mr. Amit Peswani, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates for Union of India; Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Mr. Manan Wadhwa and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocates for State, with SI Ankit, ANTF/Crime Branch.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 118