Preventive detention an extraordinary power, says HC; frees Hisar woman held under PITNDPS Act | Chandigarh News

Preventive detention is an extraordinary power that must rest on “credible and proximate evidence” and cannot be justified on “past conduct or vague apprehension”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held while ordering the immediate release of a Hisar woman detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act).

“Preventive detention is an extra ordinary power and has to be exercised sparingly, based on credible and proximate evidence of future criminal activities and not solely on the basis of the past conduct or vague apprehension,” ruled Justice Suvir Sehgal.

The court added that the State had failed to establish any “live as well as proximate link between the past conduct of the petitioner and unavoidable need to detain her”.

Story continues below this ad

The petitioner, Babli, had challenged detention orders dated May 30 and August 1, 2025, under which she was confined for six months. The orders were passed by the Haryana Home Department after she was named in three NDPS cases. Her daughter’s representation against the detention had also been rejected on June 30.

Her counsel argued that only small or intermediate quantities had been recovered in all three FIRs, that she had been convicted in just one case, and was on bail in the others while complying with all conditions. He relied on a recent Division Bench ruling in Lakhwinder Singh alias Bhindi vs State of Haryana, where the court held that involvement in multiple NDPS cases is not by itself sufficient to order detention.

The State, opposing the plea, submitted that 121 NDPS cases had been registered in Hisar district this year and that the petitioner was part of a network of 562 identified drug accused. It asserted that she was a habitual trafficker and that a police dossier sent to the Home Department justified her preventive custody.

However, the court found significant gaps in the case. While noting that the petitioner had three FIRs, Justice Sehgal pointed out that the prosecution had not pressed its application for cancellation of bail in one of the pending cases. The court also highlighted that the authorities relied on a police source report claiming she was actively trafficking narcotics, but “such a report has neither been placed on the record by the respondents nor could be referred to by the State counsel during the course of arguments”.

Story continues below this ad

The judge also termed the first FIR from 2020 as “stale material” that could not have been considered, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Ameena Begum vs State of Telangana.

Finding the detention orders unsustainable, the court set aside all three impugned orders and directed that the petitioner “be released from detention forthwith, unless her custody is required in any other criminal case”.

Source link