The Himachal Pradesh high court has quashed preventive detention orders issued against two brothers from Solan district under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT NDPS) Act, 1988. The court held that there was no 'live and proximate link' between the alleged offences and the detention orders, which were passed nearly a year after the last FIR.
Court's Ruling
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi delivered the order while allowing two habeas corpus petitions filed by the detainees' family members. The petitions sought the immediate release of the brothers from District Jail Solan.
The court noted that the brothers had been detained for three months under orders dated March 11, issued by the additional chief secretary (home). The detention was executed on March 13. The detention orders were based on four FIRs registered against both brothers under the NDPS Act at Dharampur police station, pertaining to the recovery of heroin or chitta. One of the FIRs was common to both. According to the state, both brothers were involved in narcotics trafficking and had resumed illegal activities after securing bail in these cases.
Lack of Proximate Link
The division bench held that there was no fresh FIR or criminal activity against either detainee during the intervening one-year period after the last FIR, dated March 17, 2025. Therefore, the 'live and proximate link' necessary to justify preventive detention had snapped. Relying on several Supreme Court judgments, including Rekha vs State of Tamil Nadu, the high court stated that preventive detention cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or arbitrary assumptions.
'We are of the considered opinion that apparently, the detaining authority has not even applied its mind to this aspect that two male family members of the family as such are being detained for a period of three months each and this aspect should have been duly noticed when the orders as such were being passed,' said the court.
Rejection of State's Argument
The court rejected the state's argument regarding the purchase of vehicles by the detainees' family members as an indicator of illegal income. It noted that there was no material on record to connect those purchases with the detainees' alleged activities. The court said there was no application of mind as to whether family members were taxpayers, whether they had the sources to purchase those vehicles, and whether the vehicles were financed or not.
Consequently, the court quashed the detention orders and directed that the detainees be released immediately if not required in any other case.
