Raj Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

of the Criminal Writ Petition on account of the subsequent events which have taken place since the detention order has been extended on 25.04.2026 (Annexure R-6) on the recommendation of the Advisory Board dated 31.03.2026 (Annexure R-1).

¶17

The said order dated 25.04.2026 was passed during the

¶18

pendency of the proceedings. Resultantly, we allow the application. Application stands disposed of.

¶19

1^{Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?}

¶20

2

¶21

2026:HHC:22029

¶22

Cr.W.P No. 22 of 2026

¶23

Detention order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure P-2),

¶24

passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, (Home) under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PIT NDPS Act’ ), is subject matter of challenge, on account of the petitioner’s involvement in four FIRs, though she is a 75 years old widow. The details of the said FIRs are as under:-

¶25

i. FIR No. 154/2017, dated 06.10.2017, Police Station Palampurrecovery of approx. 15 grams charas and 35 grams ganja/hashish under Sections 20 and 15 of NDPS Act.

¶26

ii. FIR No. 105/2023, dated 21.08.2023 recovery of approx. 7.07 grams heroin/chitta under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act.

¶27

Iii. FIR No. 127/2024, dated 10.11.2024 - recovery of approx. 8.35 grams heroin/chitta under Section 21 NDPS Act.

¶28

iv. FIR No. 89/2025, dated 12.05.2025 recovery of approx. 7.24 grams heroin/chitta under and 29 NDPS Act.

¶29

The challenge is primarily on the ground that firstly there is no live link as such of the last FIR i.e., FIR No. 89/2025,

¶30

which was lodged on 12.05.2025 and the detention order has been passed after a period of almost nine months.

¶31

It is further argued that the right to make a representation to the competent Authority is not specified and it should be to the Authority which passed the order which is in

¶32

3

¶33

2026:HHC:22029

¶34

violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.

¶35

The third ground which is argued is that there was acquittal in one of the FIRs, i.e. FIR No.154/2017, dated 06.10.2017, on merits as such, which order was passed on 01.01.2026, which fact was not brought to the notice of the Authority while passing the order and, therefore, it would amount to non-application of mind as such on the ground that the requisite information has not been furnished.

¶36

It is also submitted that these objections as such, were not considered by the Advisory Board and, therefore, the recommendation made on 31.03.2026 (Annexure R-5) and the subsequent order extending the detention period by one month, on 23.4.2026, would also suffer from the same infirmity. It is, accordingly, argued that the petitioner was taken into custody on 19.02.2026 and thus the detention period will continue till 19.06.2026.

¶37

We are of the considered opinion that there is no substantial merit as such, though the Counsel for the State has mainly tried to defend the detention order on the ground that the whole family as such is involved in the drug trade and there were vehicles purchased as such.

¶38

The said argument has been made by pointing out in

¶39

4

¶40

2026:HHC:22029

¶41

the rejoinder as such that the petitioner has unfortunately lost three sons and a daughter and no FIRs were against them. One son, namely Shami, had died in the year 2016, daughter Rekha had died in the year 2013 and son Raghubeer Singh had died in the year 2023 and another son Shashi had died in the year 2024.

¶42

It was thus brought to the notice as such of the Advisory Board wrongly that the entire family was involved in the said trade of illegal trafficking and there has been reference to Balbir, who is the only son, which is alive and involved in the FIR along-with the petitioner bearing No. 127/2024, dated 10.11.2024. There is also a reference to Raghubeer, who had died in the year 2022. There is also a reference to Palu, Raja and Ranjeet, who according to counsel for the petitioner, are not sons and daughter of the petitioner.

¶43

In such circumstances, apparently, the state has projected a picture as such, which is incorrect before the Advisory Board. Even, it has been brought to the notice of the Advisory Board that the detenue has two cars and one motorcycle, which has also weighed to extend the detention order. It has been mentioned in the rejoinder that there is only one vehicle in the name of Balbir Singh, the son of the petitioner, whereas, the other vehicles are in the name of Ranjit Singh and Pooja Devi, who are not connected with

¶44

5

¶45

2026:HHC:22029

¶46

the petitioner and in such circumstances, the order is also not liable to be sustained.

¶47

Apart from the said fact, there is violation of Article 22(5) Constitution of India as the detention order has not specifically mentioned that the representation is to be made before the same officer, and it is vague. The column (ii) would go on to show that the representation was to be made to the detaining authority and not before the Authority, which had passed the order, which is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, as per the law laid down in case titled Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and Others, (1995) 4 SCC 51 .

¶48

In Criminal Writ Petition No. 31 of 2025, titled as Ankush Thakur Vs. The State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 26.02.2026, we have allowed the petition on the issue of live link and non-application of mind as such and while placing the reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in case titled Mortuza Hussain Choudary Vs. State of Nagaland and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 502 , whereby following observations came forth:-

¶49

“16. Lastly, the material placed on record reflects that the detaining authority, viz., the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, did not even make separate grounds of detention but merely acted upon the

¶50

6

¶51

2026:HHC:22029

¶52

proposals for detention forwarded to her by the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Nagaland. The cryptic orders of detention passed by her on 30.05.2024 merely recorded that she was satisfied, on careful examination of such proposals and other supporting documents, that sufficient grounds were made out for the detention of Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu Chawang. This is not in keeping with the statutory scheme, inasmuch as Section 6 of the Act of 1988 specifically refers to the order of detention ‘being made’ on separate grounds. Further, Section 3(1) also records that the authorized officer, be it of the Central Government or of a State Government, must be ‘satisfied’ that the person concerned required to be detained so as to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Such ‘satisfaction’ of the detaining authority necessarily has to be spelt out after application of mind by way of separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority itself and cannot be by inference from a casual reference to the material placed before such detaining authority or a bald recital to the effect that the detaining authority was ‘satisfied on examination of the proposals and supporting documents’ that the detention of the individuals concerned was necessary.

¶53

17. On the aforestated analysis, we hold that the Gauhati High Court erred in the application of settled legal norms while testing the validity of the impugned detention orders. The common judgement dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Gauhati High Court dismissing the two writ petitions is accordingly set aside and the appeals are allowed.

¶54

In consequence, the detention orders dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Special Secretary, Home Department, Government of Nagaland, confirmed and continued thereafter by way of extension orders, shall stand quashed. The detenus, Ashraf Hussain Choudhary and Adaliu

¶55

7

¶56

2026:HHC:22029

¶57

Chawang, shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their continued incarceration is warranted in connection with any other case. ”

¶58

It is, thus, apparent that merely cryptic orders as such,

¶59

have been passed by the competent Authority without even noting that the petitioner already stood acquitted in FIR No. 154/2017 dated 06.10.2017. Rather, a perusal of the acquittal order would go on to show that even though the alleged recovery was effected from the house of the petitioner, the Trial Court as such came to the conclusion that the conscious and exclusive possession of 16 grams of charas and 35 grams of ganja had not been proved, keeping in view the fact that memos did not bear the case FIR number and the investigation had already been started when the Rukka was sent, apart from the fact that the complainant and the Investigation Officer was the same. Therefore, in such circumstances, the nonapplication of mind by the competent Authorities is writ large. Issue of live link is also on the face of it coming into play inasmuch as a period of nine months is there between the last FIR lodged and the detention order passed, which would go on to show that if there was such a threat, the action should have been taken at the earliest immediately after her release on the bail and the FIR, which was lodged on 12.05.2025.

¶60

8

¶61

2026:HHC:22029

¶62

Counsel for the State submits that proposal as such,

¶63

has been sent for seizing the property of the petitioner and her family members. Needless to say that we are not dealing with the said issue, rather dealing with the detention order, which is apparently suffering from the various infirmities and illegality. Accordingly, the detention orders dated 17.02.2026 and 25.04.2026 are quashed alongwith the consequential orders.

¶64

Keeping in view the above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶65

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶66

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge

¶67

June 04, 2026

¶68

(Shivank Thakur)

Raj Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroop Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

State of Hp Vs Rangila Ram

State of Hp and Another Vs Daleep Kumar Thakur

Adesh Bhardwaj Vs SBI and Another

State of Hp and Others Vs Tara Devi and Another

Safex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sml Limited