'No Sufficient Cause Was Shown Before Passing Detention Order': Patna High Court Orders Release Of Detenue Arrested Under PITNDPS Act

The Patna High Court on Wednesday (August 14) ordered the release of a detenue who was detained pursuant to the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (“PITNDPS”).

The release was ordered because the opinion of the advisory board recommending the detention of the detenue was unclear and unreasonable as no “sufficient cause” for detention was shown in the detention order as required under Section 9(c) of PITNDPS.

The bench comprising Justices PB Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey referred to the recent decision of Nenavath Bujji Etc. Versus State of Telangana and others reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 253 where the Supreme Court emphasized on the role and responsibility of the advisory board under the Preventive Detention Laws, on their capricious exercise of power while scrutinizing the preventive detention order of the Detaining Authority passed in a routine and mechanical manner.

The Supreme Court said that the Advisory Board must take into consideration all aspects not just the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authorities but whether such satisfaction justifies the detention of the detenu.

Testing the detention order based on the precedents, the High Court observed that merely stating “after considering the reference and materials placed before the board and upon hearing the detenue in person, the board is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for the detention of the detenue Deepak Dhanuk, son of Kishun Dhanuk, resident of village-Ward No.10, Shahpur, PO+PS Shahpur, District- Bhojpur (Ara), Bihar” would not be considered a sufficient cause for passing a detention order.

Also, the Court faulted the Central Government in not taking into consideration the representation made by the detenue wife, therefore, in view of the rejection of the detenue's wife's representation and not providing a sufficient cause for passing a detention order of the appellant, the court termed the consequential proceedings initiated by the Central Government as arbitrary.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Appearance :

For the Petitioner. : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

For the State : Mr. P.N. Sharma, AC to AG For the UOI : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Senior C.G.C. Ms. Parul Prasad, CGC. Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate. Mr. Shailesh Anand, Advocate

Case Details: Deepak Dhanuk Versus The Union of India, Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.650 of 2024

Click here to read/download the judgment