Talib Hussain v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Judgment

1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of impugned detention order No. PIT NDPS-02 of 2022 dated 18.04.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 - Divisional Commissioner Jammu alongwith the proceedings conducted under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1988 (PIT NDPS) r/w SRO 247 of 1998 dated 27.07.1988 and has sought the quashment of the impugned detention order on the following grounds:- i.

that the essential material/documents viz copies of FIR alleged in the dossier, site plan, statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under 161 Cr.PC have not been supplied to the petitioner which has prevented him to make effective representation before the Government/detaining authority, non-supply of such documents/material amounts to infraction 2 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 ii. iii. of constitutional right of petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of J&K Public Safety Act which vitiates the detention order; that the detaining authority has not considered the fact that petitioner has already been bailed out by the competent courts, the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind which makes the detention order void ab-initio and liable to be set aside; that the order of detention is bad on the ground that the same is required to be passed in the language which the detenue understands, however, respondent No. 02 - detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order has framed the same in English language which is not understood to the petitioner thereby has seriously prejudiced the right of petitioner.

2. Respondent No. 2 - Divisional Commissioner Jammu, has filed counter, wherein passing of the impugned detention order has been defended, and it has been specifically pleaded, that the petitioner/detenue is involved in Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances which poses serious threat to the health and welfare of the people and has deleterious effect on the national economy, the detention order was passed by him only after careful examination of the dossier, the relevant record made available by SSP Reasi vide his communication No. Pros/Dossier-04/2022/16260-63 dated 13.04.2022 and after following due procedure of law under the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988. It is contended that the detention warrant was duly executed upon the petitioner/detenue and the copy of the detention warrant, grounds of detention and other relevant record was read over and explained to the petitioner/detenue in the language he understands and the above documents were handed over to the petitioner who was informed about his right to make representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority against the order of detention. 3. Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has sought the setting aside of the impugned detention order by vehemently articulating arguments, that petitioner/detenue has not been supplied the detention record/material viz; copies of dossier, copies of FIRs, site plan, recovery memo, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C to enable him to make effective representation against the 3 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 impugned detention order, by not supplying the essential material petitioner/detenue’s right to make effective representation to the Government or detaining authority has been violated/infringed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and such failure on part of the detaining authority to supply the essential material vitiates whole of the detention order. It is argued, that the detaining authority has not considered the fact that petitioner has already been bailed out by the competent courts, detention order has been passed by detaining authority without application of mind which makes the detention order void ab-initio and liable to be set aside. It is vehemently argued, that the grounds of detention and dossier have been supplied to the petitioner in English language which he does not understand and the same has caused great prejudice to the petitioner who has been debarred from making effective representation to the competent authority and on these counts even the detention order requires to be quashed. To support his arguments, Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment viz; WP (Crl) No. 55/2021, decided on 23.03.2022 by Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Jammu Bench) [Hamraz Singh vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir].

4. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned GA has vehemently supported the impugned detention order against the petitioner and has sought its affirmation by projecting arguments, that the petitioner/detenue is involved in as many as five FIRs viz; (i) FIR No. 41/2020 under Section 8/22 NDPS Act of Police Station Reasi, (ii) FIR No. 60/2021 under Sections 8/21/22 NDPS Act Police Station Reasi, (iii) FIR No. 142/2021 under Sections 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act Police Station Reasi, wherein from his possession contraband heroine has been recovered on different dates of occurrences. It is argued, that petitioner/detenue is habitual criminal involved in illicit trafficking leading to spread of drug addiction among the general public especially the youth of the area, the criminal activities of the petitioner/detenue are prejudicial to the society at large besides detrimental to the peace and tranquility and menace to the public order, petitioner/detenue is engaged in sale and purchase of illicit traffic in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a 4 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 serious threat to the health and lives of the young generation, petitioner/detenue has close nexus with the gang of criminals involved in illicit trafficking of drugs in clandestine manner to earn huge and easy bucks and has spread the network of drug peddling in the entire UT of J&K. It is moreso argued, that petitioner/detenue has no respect for law and order and public tranquility causing serious threats prejudicial to the security of UT of J&K, keeping in view the continuous and repeated involvement of the petitioner/detenue in the narcotic trade, respondent No. 3 vide his endorsement No. Pros/Dossier-04/2022/16260-63 dated 13.04.2022 recommended the detention of the petitioner/detenue to prevent him from indulging in illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, and in a view to prevent the petitioner/detenue from further committing any illicit trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and to secure the health and welfare of public at large petitioner/detenue has been rightly and correctly detained under Section 3 of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988. It is argued, that as per the detention record the petitioner has been supplied all the essential detention record including the copies of detention order (02 leaves), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (07 leaves), copies of FIRs, statement of witnesses and other related relevant documents (42 leaves) [Total 55 leaves] through Executing Officer Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gautam Inspector PID No. 006218/EXJ of P/S Reasi, moreso, the impugned detention order has read over and explained the petitioner/detenue Urdu/Kashmiri language understood by him fully and he has also been informed of his right to make representation to the Government as well to the Detaining Authority if he desires, the order of detention has been passed by respondent No. 2 on 18.04.2022 and the same has been executed upon the petitioner without any delay.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the averments of the petition, counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, detention record made available by the respondents and the relevant law on the subject matter coupled with the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. 5 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022

6. Dealing with the first argument canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, that he has not been supplied with essential material of detention record which has debarred him from making effective representation to the Government or to the detaining authority which has vitiated the detention order, it is apt to reiterate here, that bare perusal of the detention record clearly demonstrates that the impugned detention order No. PITNDPS 02 of 2022 has been passed by respondent No. 2 – Divisional Commissioner Jammu on 18.04.2022 on the strength of material like dossier submitted by respondent No. 3 – SSP Reasi vide his endorsement No. Pros/Dossier-04/2022/16260-63 dated 13.04.2022. The grounds of detention have been clearly delineated by respondent No. 2 which reads as under:- You Talib Hussain S/o Noor Alam caste Gujjar R/o Sirla Bhaga Tehsil and District Reasi aged 33 years, as per dossier by Senior Superintendent of Police, Reasi do hereby inform that you are a habitual criminal and involved in the various crimes/drug trafficking leading to spread of drug addiction among the general public, specially youth of the area. That you are acting in a manner which is prejudicial to the society at large besides detrimental to the peace and tranquility and menace to the public order. Due to your activities, and your network as well as muscle power, it is oftently difficult lfor anyone to depose against you before the Police or in the Court of law. You are engaged in sale and purchase of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which poses a serious threat to the lives of young generation of the country and even to the economy of the UT of J&K. You are posing threat to the security of the UT of J&K and country, also to the health of general public at large. Reportedly, you are auto driver by profession and have very close nexus with the gang of criminals who have started illicit trafficking of drugs in a clandestine manner to earn huge and easy bucks and also have spread the network of drug peddling in the entire UT of J&K. You are surreptitiously been indulging in criminal activity like drug mafia inside and outside Reasi District endangering not only the youth but causing serious threats prejudicial to the security of UT of J&K. Moreover you are also a History Sheeter of Police Station Reasi. Some of your criminal activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances are enumerated as under:-

1. FIR No. 41/2020 U/S 8/22 NDPS Act of P/S Reasi:- On 27.04.2020 you were coming from Reasi alongwith other person on motorcycle bearing registration No. JK20A-3214, stopped for checking, you disclosed your name Talib Hussain S/o Noor Alam caste Gujjar R/o Sirla Bhaga and pillion as Arun Dev Thakur S/o Kamail Singh R/o Sirla Bhaga District Reasi. On your personal search, a silver foil cover was recovered from right pocket of your pent which contains narcotic like substance Chitta weighing about 05 grams and on the personal search of pillion 6 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 rider namely, Arun Dev Thakur S/o Karnail Singh R/o Sirla Bhaga District Reasi about 05 grams of Chitta like substance wrapped in silver foil was also recovered from his possession. On this case FIR No. 41/2020 u/s 8/22 NDPS Act was registered at PS Reasi and Investigating Officer, after completion of all required/legal formalities in the instant case challan produced before the Court of Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi.

2. FIR No. 60/2021 U/S 8/21/22 NDPSAct of P/S Reasi:- On 24.03.2021, during patrolling/checking duty at about 0930 hrs, the police party found you coming from Katra towards Reasi, on suddenly seeking the police party, you tried to hide yourself but you was eventually apprehended. On questioning, you disclosed your identity as Talib Hussain S/o Noor Alam caste Gujjar R/o SirlaBhaga, Tehsil & District Reasi. During your personal search, Heroin like substance was recovered from your possession. On this, case FIR No. 60/2021 U/S 8/21/22 NDPS Act of P/S Reasi and after completion of all required/legal formalities in the case and the investigation of case closed as challan and produced before the Court of Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi.

3. FIR No. 142/2021 U/S 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act of P/S Reasi:- On 07.07.2021 when the police party was on patrolling duty, laid a naka near Siar Baba at about 2030 hrs, you along with 03 other persons were coming from Gujjar Kothi Dhyan Garh towards Talwara on foot. On seeing police party you tried to fled away from the spot. i/CPP Talwara along with other officials chased all of you and on enquiry, you along with others disclosed names as 1. Ghulam ali S/o Abdul Kareem caste Gujjar R/o Talwara, 2. Talib Hussain S/o Noor Alam R/o Sirla Bhaga, 3. Mohd Farooq S/o Ghulam Hussain R/o Tulli Bana and 4. Mohd Usmann S/o Mohd Iqbal R/o Tulli Banna Tehsil Chassana District Reasi. During the personal search, 01 Gram Chitta like narcotic substance was recovered from the right pocket of your pent. During further course of enquiry you along with other accused stated that you have thrown some of the materials (Chitta like narcotic substance) into the Chenab river. On this case FIR No. 142/2021 u/s 08/21/22/29 NDPS Act was registered at PS Reasi and after completion of all required/legal formalities in the instant case, the investigation of case closed as challan and produced before the Court of Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi. You have also committed numerous offences in District Reasi and found involved in below mentioned FIRs registered in PS Reasi.

1. FIR No. 33/2019 u/s 435/457 RPC r/w 4/25 Arms Act.

2. FIR No. 78/2022 u/s 279/304-A IPC, 3. Complaint Preventive measure u/s 110 Cr.PC dated

04.10.2021and

4. Complaint Preventive measure u/s 36 Police Act dated

05.10.2021 Keeping in view your involvement in criminal offences as well as continuous and repeated involvement in narcotic substance cases, Sr. Superintendent of Police, Reasi vide letter dated 13.04.2022 has recommended that you may be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, as though you are granted bail in all cases 7 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 but you are still indulging in illicit trafficking in narcotic substances. From above facts and circumstances, it is evident that you are drug peddler involved in repeated cases of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which as per Section 2 of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 means "illicit traffic". Such "illicit traffic" poses serious threat to the health and welfare of the people of Union Territory of J&K at large. Now, therefore, with a view to prevent you from further committing any offence of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and to secure the health and welfare of public at large, I have reached to the conclusion that it has become imperative to detain you U/S 3 of The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. Detention record further demonstrates that the order of detention dated 18.04.2022 has been served upon the petitioner/detenue without any delay, whereby, the copies of detention order (02 leaves), notice of detention (01 leaf), grounds of detention (03 leaves), dossier of detention (07 leaves), copies of FIRs, statements of witnesses and other related relevant documents (42 leaves) [Total 55 leaves] through Executing officer Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gautam Inspector PID No.006218/EXJ of Police Station Reasi, and receipt thereof has been given by the petitioner/detenue by writing his name in English which clearly indicates that the petitioner understands English language also. Moreso, the execution report depicts that the contents of detention warrant and grounds of detention have been read over to the petitioner/detenue in English and also explained to him Urdu/Kashmiri language which he fully understands and in lieu thereof petitioner has appended his signature on the execution report. In view of the detailed record submitted by the respondents, it is discernable, that the petitioner/detenue has been supplied whole of the detention record/essential material so as to enable him to make effective representation against the said detention order before the Government or Detaining Authority and therefore, no right much less any right of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India r/w Section 13 of Public Safety Act has been violated. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that non-supply of record/documents/essential material to the petitioner has debarred him from making effective representation are far from 8 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 reality, legally unsustainable, repelled, rejected and discarded.

7. The second argument portrayed by learned counsel for petitioner is, that the detaining authority has not considered the fact that petitioner has already been bailed out by competent courts, thereby, the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind which vitiates whole of the detention order. Grounds of detention passed by respondent No. 02 dated

18.04.2022 in para 05 clearly depict that the detaining authority has made specific reference of the fact that petitioner/detenue has been granted bails in all the cases registered against him, but is still indulging in illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs. The detaining authority at the time of passing the detention order has considered the fact that petitioner/detenue was involved in so many FIRs and has been granted bails. The detaining authority has applied its mind to the facts of the case and the allegations against the petitioner and has passed the detention order in conformity with the provisions of law. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind being utterly misconceived under law are repelled, discarded and rejected.

8. The third argument urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the petitioner has been supplied the record of detention/the grounds of detention by detaining authority in English language which is not understood to the petitioner, thereby, has seriously prejudiced the right of the petitioner vitiating the detention order. It is pertinent to mention here, that the detention record on its perusal demonstrates that the detention order dated 18.04.2022 passed by respondent No. 02 has been executed by Inspector Rajesh Kumar Gautam PID 006218/Exj of PS Reasi who took the custody of petitioner on

19.04.2022. The notice of detention and contents of detention warrant and grounds of detention have been read over to petitioner/detenue in English language and explained to him in Hindi/Dogri language which has been fully understood by the petitioner and in lieu whereof petitioner has signed in English. Moreso, as many as 55 leaves of detention record has been supplied to the petitioner who has been informed to make representation to the Government as well as to the detaining authority against the detention 9 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 order if he desires. The arguments of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned detention order has not been communicated to the petitioner and made him understood in the language which he understands is far from reality, misconceived under law, dismissed and rejected. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner titled Hamraz Singh vs. Union Territory of J&K [WP (Crl) No. 55/2021] in view of the facts of the present case is distinguishable and inapplicable to the case in hand.

9. Although right of personal liberty is most precious right, guaranteed under the Constitution, which has been held to be transcendental, inalienable and available to a person independent of the Constitution, yet the personal liberty may be curtailed, where a person faces a criminal charge or is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment. A person is not to be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established under law and the procedure as laid down in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978 AIR SC 597), is to be just and fair. Where a person is facing trial on a criminal charge and is temporarily deprived of his personal liberty owing to criminal charge framed against him, he has an opportunity to defend himself and to be acquitted of the charge in case prosecution fails to bring home his guilt. Where such person is convicted of offence, he still has satisfaction of having been given adequate opportunity to contest the charge and also adduce evidence in his defence. However, framers of the Constitution have by incorporating Article 22 (5) in the Constitution left room for detention of a person without a formal charge and trial and without such person held guilty of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment by a competent court. Its aim and object is to save the society from activities that are likely to deprive a large number of people of their right to life and personal liberty. In such a case it would be dangerous for the people at large to wait and watch as by the time ordinary law is set into motion, the person having dangerous designs, would execute his plans, exposing general public to risk and causing colossal damage to life and property. It is for that reason, necessary to take preventive measures and prevent the person bent upon to perpetrate mischief from translating his ideas into action. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, therefore, leaves scope for enactment of preventive detention law. 10 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022

10. 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. The basis of detention is the satisfaction of the executive of a reasonable probability of likelihood of detenue acting in a manner similar to his past acts and preventing him by detention from doing the same. The Supreme Court in Haradhan Saha vs. State of W.B. (1975) 3 SCC 198, points out that a criminal conviction, on the other hand, is for an act already done, which can only be possible by a trial and legal evidence. There is no parallel between prosecution in a Court of law and a detention order under the Act. One is a punitive action and the other is a preventive act. In one case, a person is punished to prove his guilt and the standard is proof, beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in preventive detention a man is prevented from doing something, which is necessary for reasons mentioned in the Act, to prevent.

11. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and Section 13 of the J&K Public Safety Act 1978, guarantee safeguard to detenue to be informed, as soon as may be, of grounds on which order of detention is made, which led to the subjective satisfaction of detaining authority and also to be afforded earliest opportunity of making representation against order of detention. Detenue is to be furnished with sufficient particulars to enable him to make a representation, which on being considered, may obtain relief to him. Detention record, made available by learned counsel for respondents, reveals that detention order was made on proper application of mind, to the facts of the case and detenue was delivered at the time of execution of detention order, the material and grounds of detention and also informed that he had a right to represent against his preventive detention. Perusal of detention order depicts its execution. It further reveals that the copy of detention warrant, grounds of detention, notice of detention, copy of dossier etc. were received by the petitioner-detenue which were read over and explained to detenue in Urdu/Kashmiri languages, which detenue understood fully in token of which the signatures of detenue had been obtained. It also divulges that detenue was informed that he can make representation to the government and detaining authority. The grounds of detention are definite, proximate and free from any ambiguity. The detenue has been informed with sufficient clarity what 11 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 actually weighed with Detaining Authority while passing detention order. Detaining Authority has narrated facts and figures that made the authority to exercise its powers under Section 8 J&K Public Safety Act 1978 and record subjective satisfaction that detenue was required to be placed under preventive detention in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State.

12. Further, although grounds of detention are by and large is replica of dossier, yet one cannot lose sight of the fact that three (03) FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner-detenue under various sections of the NDPS Act which made basis to book him under the Public Safety Act and also involved in other two FIRs and two Complaints, so as to prevent him from acting in a manner similar to his past acts or engaging in activities prejudicial to security of the State or maintenance of public order. Further, the sponsoring authority has not only supplied the material, viz; dossier, containing gist of the activities of the detenue, but has also supplied the material in the shape of FIRs. All this material was before the detaining authority when it arrived at subjective satisfaction that activities of the detenue were prejudicial to maintenance of public order and requires preventive detention of detenue. Further, if in any given case a single act is found to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be quashed, but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot constitute the basis for detention. On the contrary, it does. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be multiplicity of grounds for making or sustaining an order of detention. The same views and principles were reiterated by the Apex Court in Goutam Jain vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 230. In the present case, the petitioner-detenue seems to be a hard core criminal and has become a terror figure among the people of the area as against him five FIRs and two Complaints came to be registered in police station, Reasi under various sections of the NDPS Act between the period 2019 to the year 2022. Since the actions taken against the petitioner- detenue under the ordinary law from time to time have not been proved to be deterrent, as such the respondents had no other option but to keep him in preventive detention.

13. Personal liberty is one of the most cherished freedoms, perhaps more important than the other freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. It 12 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 was for this reason that the Founding Fathers enacted the safeguards in Article 22 in the Constitution so as to limit the power of the State to detain a person without trial, which may otherwise pass the test of Article 21, by humanizing the harsh authority over individual liberty. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the drastic power to detain a person without trial for security of the State and/or maintenance of public order must be strictly construed. However, where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest of the security of the State or public order, then the liberty of the individual must give way to the larger interest of the nation. These observations have been made by the Supreme Court in The Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order-F) and another vs. Nabila and another (2015) 12 SCC 127.

14. In the present case the petitioner has been involved in many criminal activities and against him five (05) FIRs and two (02) Complaints viz; (i) FIR No. 41/2020, (ii) FIR No. 60/2021, (iii) FIR No. 142/2021, (iv) FIR No. 33/2019, (v) FIR No. 78/2022, under various Sections of the NDPS Act, IPC and Arms Act have been registered in police stations in District Reasi (vi) Complaint Preventive measures u/s 110 Cr.P.C and (vii) Complaint Preventive measures u/s 36 Police Act. FIR No. 41/2020 U/S 8/22 NDPS Act is registered with Police Station Reasi and recovery of 10gms of Chitta has been affected from the petitioner and one Arun Dev Thakur, in FIR No. 60/2021 U/S 8/21/22 NDPS Act registered with Police Station Reasi and Heroin like substance has been affected from the petitioner, in FIR No. 142/2021 U/S 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Reasi recovery of 01 gms of Chitta like narcotic substance has been affected from the petitioner and three other person and during course of enquiry the petitioner stated that they have thrown some of the materials (Chitta like narcotic substance) into the Chenab river, in FIR No. 33/2019 U/S 435/457 RPC r/w 4/25 Arms Act registered with Police Station Reasi whereas in FIR No. 78/2022 u/s 279/304-A IPC of P/S registered with Police Station Reasi. From the bare perusal of the FIRs and the allegations therein against the petitioner, it is discernable, that the petitioner is a hardcore criminal, has become a terror figure among the people of the area, the actions taken against him under ordinary law from time to time have not been proved to be deterrent. It seems that 13 WP (Crl) No. 37/2022 petitioner/detenue instead of mending his ways has continuously been indulging in criminal activities and has not shown any respect for the law of the land, as such, the petitioner/detenue has created a sense of alarm, scare and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area, has become a chronic fear amongst the people of the area. Thus, the activities of the petitioner are of hardcore criminal and habitual of indulging in acts of illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances cases. The record so produced reveals that the petitioner/detenue has been indulging in illegal trade in an organized manner, which is a great threat for sustaining the conservative values of the society and the drug trafficking also possess great threat to the society for the reason that the proceeds of the drug sale can be utilized for financing of other criminal activities, hence, petitioner has been rightly detained by Respondent No. 2.

15. For the foregoing discussion, the petition sans any merit and is accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s), if any.

16. Registry to return the detention record against proper receipt. (Mohan Lal) Judge Jammu 10.02.2023 Vijay Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No