The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling affirming that preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act cannot be invoked merely because an accused is facing multiple NDPS cases, especially when regular bail has already been granted. The judgment reinforces constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state power and establishes that judicial satisfaction expressed through bail orders must inform any decision to deprive liberty preventively.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Gurnam Singh, was facing five criminal cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, all involving non-commercial quantities of contraband. In each case, he was granted regular bail by competent criminal courts. Despite this, the State authorities initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), leading to his preventive detention.
Procedural History
- 21.03.2025: Superintendent of Police, Dabwali, recommended detention to the State Narcotics Control Bureau.
- 14.07.2025: Secretary, Home Department, issued detention order under PITNDPS Act.
- 05.08.2025: Petitioner taken into custody.
- 15.09.2025: Detention order confirmed for six months by Director General of Police.
- 30.01.2026: High Court heard the writ petition under Article 226.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of both the detention and confirmation orders, arguing that his continued liberty under bail rendered preventive detention unnecessary, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act can be justified when the detenu is already on regular bail in multiple NDPS cases, and the detaining authority has failed to examine the adequacy of bail conditions or explain the necessity of overriding judicial orders.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the detention order was mechanically based on past criminal antecedents without any proximate or fresh evidence of imminent threat. The petitioner’s bail in all five cases demonstrated judicial satisfaction that he did not pose an unmanageable risk to public order. The failure to consider bail conditions or explain their insufficiency amounted to non-application of mind and rendered the subjective satisfaction legally unsustainable. Reliance was placed on Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police, Sama Aruna v. State of Telangana, and Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioner’s repeated involvement in five NDPS cases established a habitual pattern of trafficking, justifying preventive action regardless of bail. It argued that bail does not erase antecedents and that the State retains independent power under PITNDPS Act to prevent future prejudicial activity. The procedural compliance with statutory review was emphasized.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the constitutional and statutory framework governing preventive detention. It held that preventive detention is an extraordinary measure, not a tool to circumvent the bail process. The Court emphasized that bail orders under the stringent NDPS regime are not mere formalities - they reflect judicial assessment of risk, likelihood of reoffending, and sufficiency of conditions.
"When a person is enlarged on bail by a competent criminal court, great caution should be exercised in scrutinising the validity of an order of preventive detention which is based on the very same charge which is to be tried by the criminal court."
The Court cited Joyi Kitty Joseph v. Union of India to hold that failure to consider bail conditions is fatal to the validity of detention. The detaining authority must record specific reasons why the judicially imposed conditions are inadequate to prevent future prejudicial activity. Here, no such reasoning was recorded.
Further, the Court noted a delay of over six months between the last criminal case (registered 20.01.2025) and the detention order (05.08.2025). This unexplained lapse severed the live and proximate link required between past conduct and present necessity, as established in Golam Hussain and Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar. The detention order merely recited statutory language without demonstrating how the petitioner’s conduct threatened public order as distinct from mere law and order.
The Court concluded that the detention assumed a punitive character, effectively substituting preventive detention for failed prosecution - a practice expressly condemned by the Supreme Court.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act cannot be sustained where the detenu is on bail in all pending NDPS cases and the detaining authority has not examined the efficacy of bail conditions or explained the necessity of overriding judicial orders. The impugned orders were quashed and the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Orders Are Not Merely Informative - They Are Conclusive
- Practitioners must argue that grant of bail under NDPS Act constitutes judicial satisfaction on risk assessment and likelihood of reoffending.
- Detaining authorities cannot ignore bail orders; failure to address them renders detention legally unsustainable.
- In writ petitions challenging detention, the presence of bail should be the first line of defense.
Proximate Conduct Must Be Proven, Not Assumed
- Past cases alone, especially if stale or non-commercial, cannot justify detention.
- Authorities must produce specific, recent, and credible material showing imminent threat - not vague assertions of "habitual offender" status.
- Delay beyond three months without explanation breaks the live link required under Golam Hussain.
Preventive Detention Is Not a Backup for Prosecution
- Courts will not permit the State to use PITNDPS Act to bypass bail jurisprudence.
- Detention orders must clearly distinguish between "law and order" and "public order" - mere registration of cases is insufficient.
- Practitioners should demand detailed grounds of detention and challenge boilerplate language as legally inadequate.
