Manu Sharma Vs State of Hp and Another

For the petitioner : Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral )

¶11

Challenge in the present petition is to the detention order dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was detained for a period of three months under Section 3(1) read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PIT NDPS Act’ ).

¶12

SHIVANK THAKUR

¶13

Digitally signed by SHIVANK THAKUR Date: 2026.06.20 13:57:03 +0530

¶14

The reason as such for the detention is that there are

¶15

two FIRs registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act. The details of the said FIRs are as under:-

¶16

i. In First Information Report No. 20/2025, dated 29.01.2025, at Police Station Dehra, H.P., under Sections 21 and 29 of the

¶17

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

¶18

2

¶19

2026:HHC:23581

¶20

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, approximately 7 grams of heroin/chitta were recovered from him;

¶21

ii. In First Information Report No. 33/2025, dated 01.04.2025, at Police Station Dehra, H.P., under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, approximately 6 grams of heroin/chitta were recovered from him;

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the detention order was passed almost a year later i.e. on 23.03.2026, on account of the recommendation dated 25.02.2026, after the last FIR, which was lodged against the petitioner on 01.04.2025, whereby he was accused of having 6 rams of heroin/chitta. It is submitted that the issue of proximate and live link is missing, therefore, the detention order cannot be sustained.

¶23

On the other hand, counsel for the State has argued that the matter was put up before the Advisory Board as such and the detention order had been approved in the meeting held on 17.04.2026.

¶24

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sama Aruna vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 12 SCC 150 , has held that a preventive detention order passed was without examining the existence of a live and proximate link between the alleged events and the order of detention would amount to punishment of a crime, passed without a

¶25

3

¶26

2026:HHC:23581

¶27

trial, and that the exceptional powers of preventive detention cannot be permitted to devolve into a draconian and arbitrary exercise of the State authority. It has also been held that the two FIRs registered against the detenue were capable of being dealt with in the ordinary course of criminal law. The relevant portion reads as under:-

¶28

“17. We are, therefore, satisfied that the aforesaid detention order was passed on grounds which are stale and which could not have been considered as relevant for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu must be detained. The detention order must be based on a reasonable prognosis of the future behavior of a person based on his past conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances. The live and proximate link that must exist between the past conduct of a person and the imperative need to detain him must be taken to have been snapped in this case. A detention order which is founded on stale incidents, must be regarded as an order of punishment for a crime, passed without a trial, though purporting to be an order of preventive detention. The essential concept of preventive detention is that the detention of a person is not to punish him for something he has done but to prevent him from doing it. See G. Reddeiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.2 , and P.U. Iqbal v. Union of India.

¶29

18 to 21 x--------x----------x-----------x-------------x

¶30

22. We are of the view, that the detention order in this case is vitiated by taking into account incidents so far back in the past as would have no bearing on the

¶31

4

¶32

2026:HHC:23581

¶33

immediate need to detain him without a trial. The satisfaction of the authority is not in respect of the thing in regard to which it is required to be satisfied. Incidents which are stale, cease to have relevance to the subject matter of the enquiry and must be treated as extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute.

¶34

23. In this case, we find the authority has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever reach. A detaining authority must be taken to know both, the purpose and the procedure of law. It is no answer to say that the authority was satisfied. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerela and Ors., this Court observed, where the authority takes into account stale incidents which have gone by to seed it would be safe to infer that the satisfaction of the authority is not a genuine one.

¶35

24 & 25 x--------x----------x-----------x-------------x

¶36

26. The influence of the stale incidents in the detention order is too pernicious to be ignored, and the order must therefore go; both on account of being vitiated due to malice in law and for taking into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account.”

¶37

Reliance can also be placed upon the following

¶38

judgments i.e. Mallada K. Sri Ram Vs. State of Telangana and Others, (2023) 13 SCC 537 , Ameena Begum Vs. The State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587 and Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 5 SCC 244 .

¶39

Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the non-application of mind by the competent Authorities is writ large. The issue of live link is also on the face of

¶40

5

¶41

2026:HHC:23581

¶42

it coming into play inasmuch as for a period of almost one year between the last FIR lodged and the detention order passed, there is no criminal activity or involvement in NDPS matter..

¶43

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the detention order dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P-1), alongwith all consequential orders are quashed. The petitioner be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶44

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶45

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge

¶46

June 19, 2026

¶47

(Shivank Thakur)

¶48

Digitally signed by SHIVANK SHIVANK THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2026.06.20 13:57:15 +0530

Manu Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu Sharma v. State of Hp and Another

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

Rakesh Rana Vs the State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Others Vs Happy Kumar

Kusum Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others

court on its Own Motion Vs State of Hp

Ashwani Kumar Vs Union of India and Others

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Pearl Rana and Anr.