Naresh Thakur @ Nishu Vs the State of Hp and Others

dated 06.12.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 for a period of three months exercising the powers under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

¶14

A perusal of the detention order would go on to show that there was proposal as such by the Superintendent of Police, Solan on account of the four FIRs lodged against the detenue and the detaining authority just passed the order by taking into consideration the said FIRs by coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was a habitual offender, involved in a drug trafficking and a notorious drug dealer.

¶15

As per the source report relied upon, he has not stopped illegal activity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, even

¶16

2

¶17

2026:HHC:5648

¶18

after his arrest in previous cases, due to which the order has been passed.

¶19

The details of the FIRs as such, which led to the detaining authorities to pass the order, would go on to show that small and intermediate quantity of heroin/chitta, was recovered from the petitioner. The details of the FIRs against the petitioner read as under:-

¶20

i. In FIR No. 05/2020, dated 13.01.2020 at PS Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. u/s 21 & 29 of NDPS Act around 4366 grams of herion/chitta was recovered from him; ii. In FIR No. 90/2023 dated 06.08.2023 dated 06.08.2023 at PS Dharampur, District Solan, H.P. u/s 21 & 29 of NDPS Act around 6.30 grams of herioin/chitta was recovered from him; iii. In FIR No. 86/2023 dated 23.10.2023 at PS Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. u/s 21 of NDPS Act around 2.18 of herioin/chitta was recovered from him;

¶21

iv. In FIR No. 05/2024 dated 10.01.2024 at PS Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. u/s 21 of NDPS Act around 7.57 grams of herioin/chitta was recovered from him.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by us in Cr.WP No. 31 of 2025 , titled as Ankush Thakur vs. State of H.P. & Ors. , decided on 26.02.2026 and submits that in the present case also there is no live link as such between the last FIR lodged and the detention order passed on 06.12.2025.

¶23

A perusal of the FIRs would go on to show that last FIR was lodged on 10.01.2024 and the detention order was passed almost after a period of two years on 06.12.2025 and, therefore, this aspect has totally lost the sight of by the detaining authority.

¶24

In similar circumstances, we have also quashed the order

¶25

in Ankush Thakur’s case supra by placing reliance on Mortuza

¶26

3

¶27

2026:HHC:5648

¶28

Hussain Choudhary vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., 2025 SCC Online SC 502 , that the application of mind by the detaining authority was missing. The relevant paragraphs of Apex Court judgment read as under:-

¶29

“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 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

¶30

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.

¶31

4

¶32

2026:HHC:5648

¶33

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

¶34

Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that a case has been made out for quashing the detention order. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the detention order dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and the petitioner be set free, if not required in any other case.

¶35

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶36

(G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶37

(Bipin C. Negi) 3^rd March, 2026 Judge (sanjeev)

Naresh Thakur @ Nishu v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Thakur @ Nishu v. the 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

Hpsebl and Another Vs Sukhdev Singh

The Land Acquisition Colllector Hppwd and others Vs Anil and others

The Land Acquisition Colllector Hppwd and others Vs Namit Gupta and another

Arun Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajeev Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Chaman Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.