The Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms that mere involvement in NDPS cases is not sufficient for preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act; rather, a live and proximate link between persistent conduct and the need for detention, supported by substantive material, is essential. The judgment distinguishes prior precedent and upholds established law, providing binding authority for future cases involving habitual drug traffickers.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/23773/2025 of AJAIB SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011292062025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Preventive Detention; NDPS Act; PITNDPS Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere involvement in multiple NDPS cases without more entitles authorities to detain a person preventively under PITNDPS Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act cannot be sustained on the basis of mere involvement in NDPS cases. Detention is justified where there is substantive material showing a live and proximate link between prior conduct and the necessity to prevent further offences. The detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction must be supported by an analysis of FIRs, seizure memos, disclosure statements, and other material. This standard was held satisfied in this case, unlike in the precedent cited by the petitioner. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court considered the live and proximate link requirement, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, and evaluation of all relevant material as per Supreme Court’s tests in preventive detention jurisprudence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was detained for six months under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act due to repeated involvement in NDPS Act cases. He had prior convictions and multiple pending trials for offences involving intermediate quantities of heroin. Upon each release on bail, further offences were allegedly committed, and he was described as part of a broad narcotics network. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court on preventive detention issues |
| Distinguishes | Lakhwinder Singh @ Bhindi v. State of Haryana and others (LPA-2654-2025, decided 09.09.2025) |
| Follows | Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana and others (2023) 9 SCC 587 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that mere involvement in criminal cases under the NDPS Act is not sufficient for preventive detention; a live and proximate link between habitual conduct and anticipated future offences is required.
- The Court clarified the evidentiary threshold: the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction must be based on concrete material such as FIRs, seizure memos, disclosure statements, and FSL reports.
- Distinguishes prior local precedent (Lakhwinder Singh) on facts, clarifying the application of the “proximate link” test.
- Confirms jurisprudential adherence to Supreme Court guidance (Ameena Begum) on preventive detention standards.
- Lawyers should prepare to demonstrate both the persistent pattern of offending and the direct necessity for detention to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s argument, citing Division Bench precedent (Lakhwinder Singh) that mere involvement in NDPS cases does not suffice for preventive detention.
- Examined the sequence of past offences, convictions, and bail record: noted the repetitive nature and geographic pattern of drug offences by the petitioner.
- Analyzed whether the detaining authority’s “subjective satisfaction” under Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act was supported by substantive evidence.
- The Court found material such as FIRs, seizure and disclosure documents, and witness statements justified the detention.
- Applied and affirmed the Supreme Court’s test in Ameena Begum: a “live and proximate link” between past criminal conduct and the need for detention must be shown.
- Distinguished Lakhwinder Singh because, unlike that case, here the pattern of repeated offending, continuing after each bail, demonstrated the requisite proximate link and necessity for detention.
- Concluded the procedures followed satisfied statutory and constitutional requirements, and no violation was demonstrated by the petitioner.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Argued that mere involvement in NDPS cases does not warrant preventive detention.
- Highlighted that recovery of contraband was effected in only three cases, all pending trial, and petitioner was on bail.
- Asserted that there was no incriminating material justifying anticipation of further offences.
- Relied on Lakhwinder Singh (Division Bench) that involvement in NDPS cases per se is insufficient for detention.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted that affidavits and material conclusively show petitioner is a habitual drug trafficker and a threat to society.
- Emphasized petitioner’s consistent criminal activity and likelihood to continue offending.
- Pointed to the petitioner’s broad network and ongoing influence as reasons for preventive detention.
Factual Background
The petitioner was detained for six months under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, following a proposal by the Director General of Police, Haryana, which included copies of FIRs, seizure memos, and other supporting material. He had prior convictions under the NDPS Act and was involved in at least eight other ongoing cases concerning heroin trade in and around Dabwali. Despite bail and acquittals in some cases, he allegedly continued offending over a period exceeding two decades. The Advisory Board found sufficient cause for preventive detention, and the order was confirmed and served on the petitioner.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 was the primary statutory provision interpreted.
- The Court examined the requirement of “subjective satisfaction” by the detaining authority, emphasizing it must be grounded in concrete, proximate evidence of persistent criminal behavior.
- The Court applied the legal standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Ameena Begum regarding the necessity for a “live and proximate link” between past conduct and preventive objectives.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were set out in this judgment; standard procedures for preventive detention were examined for compliance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court in Ameena Begum (2023) 9 SCC 587.