2026:HHC:850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

SHIMLA

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

R eserved on: 30.10.2025

Date of decision: 5.1 . 2026

Pawan Kumar. ...Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. & Others. …Respondents.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Yes.

For the Petitioner. Ms.Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with

Ms.Dhanwanti, Advocate.

For the Respondents:Mr.J.S. Guleria and Mr.Raj Negi, Deputy

Advocate General.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

Petitioner, through his wife, has approached this Court

invoking jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India against impugned detention order dated 5

th

May,

2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

2 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

Government of Himachal Pradesh, exercising the powers conferred by

Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance Act, 1988 ( for short ‘PIT NDPS Act, 1988’),

directing to detain the petitioner in Lala Lajpat Rai District Jail Kangra at

Dharamshala for three months as per the Act, which was upheld by H.P.

State Advisory Board (PIT NDPS Act 1988) at Shimla (for short ‘Board’)

on 11.8.2025 (Annexure P-6), extending the period of detention for further

three months, praying for following reliefs:-

“i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash

order dated 05

th

May, 2025 passed by respondent No. 1 and

upheld by respondent No. 4-Board on 11.08.2025 when the period

of detention has been extended for three months more;

ii).That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued

directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. Fifty Lakhs

only (Rs.50,00,000/- only) to the petitioner for his illegal detention

w.e.f. 06.08.2025 to 11.08.2025 on which date the order of

detention dated 05.05.2025 passed by respondent No. 1 which

was valid till 05.08.2025 has been upheld and further respondent

No. 4-Board has ordered for extension of period of detention of the

petitioner for three months;

iii)That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued

directing the respondents to place on record the proposal

submitted by respondent No. 3 regarding issuance of preventive

detention of the petitioner and quash the same.”

2. Petitioner had preferred Civil Writ Petition No. 10120 of

2025 on 23.6.2025 against his detention order dated 5.5.2025, however,

3 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

the said Writ Petition was disposed with liberty reserved to the petitioner

to lay challenge to order dated 11.8.2025 passed by the Board as well as

order dated 5.5.2025, because during pendency of the said Writ Petition,

the Board, vide order dated 11.8.2025, had upheld the detention order

dated 5.5.2025 and had further opined that detention should be extended

by further three months.

3. In sequel to opinion rendered by the Board, Additional Chief

Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued order

dated 5.9.2025 directing detention of the petitioner for another three

months from the date of earlier three months detention of detenu.

4. Admittedly, petitioner is facing trial in six cases, due to

recovery of contraband from him, for commission of offense punishable

under Sections 20, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1988. Details of cases is as under:-

“i. In FIR No. 27/19 dated 22.02.19 at PS Kangra, District Kangra,

H.P. u/s 20 & 21 of NDPS Act around 14.17 grams of Charas and

2.55 gram of Heroin/chitta were recovered from him;

ii.In FIR No. 09/20 dated 08.01.20 of PS Kangra, District Kangra

HP. u/s 21 of NDPS Act, around 11.22 Gram of Heroin/chitta was

recovered from him.

iii.FIR No. 189/20 dated 02.10.2020 at PS Kangra, District Kangra

HP, u/s 21, 29 of NDPS Act, around 06.10 Gram of Heroin/chitta

was recovered from him.

4 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

iv.FIR No. 19/23 dated 02.02.2023 at PS Kangra, District Kangra,

H.P. u/s 20 of NDPS Act around 35.20 Gram of Charas was

recovered from him.

v.FIR No. 109/23 dated 15.07.23 at PS Kangra, District Kangra, HP,

u/s 21 of NDPS Act around 10.69 Gram of Heroin/chitta was

recovered from him.

vi.FIR No. 180/2024 dated 06.11.2024 at PS Kangra, District

Kangra, HP, u/s 21, 29 of NDPS Act, around 26.10 Gram of

Heroin/chitta was recovered from him.”

5. From the impugned order of detention dated 5.5.2025, it is

apparent that till 15.7.2023, five Criminal cases were registered against

the petitioner in Police Station, Kangra. During investigation of the

aforesaid cases, 241 Tola of Gold, 1.2 Kilogram Silver and 44,500/-

₹

cash was recovered and residential house of the petitioner and other

assets were worth about 1.06 Crores, and his wife has also been found

involved in commission of the same offence and entire society was under

threat due to illicit act of drug trafficking by the detenu and it had become

family business and detenu had indulged himself in illicit trafficking of

narcotic drugs.

6. In aforesaid circumstances, on 31.1.2024, a proposal was

mooted, to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of

Himachal Pradesh, for detaining the petitioner under PIT NDPS Act, 1988

by summoning report through Superintendent of Police.

5 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

7. In the meanwhile, on 6.11.2024, petitioner was again found

involved in commission of offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS

Act and 26.10 Grams of Heroin/chitta was recovered from him and he

was arrested.

8. Thereafter Superintendent of Police, Kangra re-submitted

proposal for detention under PIT NDPS Act through communication

dated 19.4.2025.

9. Considering the report and material in support thereof

Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal

Pradesh passed impugned detention order dated 5.5.2025, directing to

keep the petitioner for three months detention as per the Act. At that time

petitioner was in jail in case FIR No. 180 of 2024.

10. Petitioner preferred bail application Cr.MP(M) No. 1218 of

2025, dated 20.5.2025, wherein after taking into consideration entire

material including FIRs registered against the petitioner in past, he was

ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 6.6.2025, subject to

certain conditions including furnishing bonds in the sum of 50,000/- and

₹

surety in the like amount.

11. On 9.6.2025, wife of the petitioner alongwith relevant

documents went to Superintendent Model Central Jail, Dharamshala,

where at the time of release of petitioner from judicial custody being

6 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

under trial prisoner, petitioner was served upon order dated 5.5.2025 and

detained him in the same jail as directed in impugned order dated

5.5.2025, passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh.

12. In aforesaid facts, present petitioner has been filing on

following grounds:-

(A)That detention order of the petitioner is illegal,

arbitrary and without jurisdiction as well as is a result

of non-application of mind and is also contrary to the

provisions of PIT NDPS Act.

(B)It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that

grounds of detention were not supplied to the

petitioner;

(C)three months’ detention of the petitioner was going to

expire on 5.8.2025, whereas, continuation of his

detention was ordered on 11.8.2025, but the

petitioner was kept in illegal, unauthorized and

unconstitutional detention from 5.8.2025 till 11.8.2025

the date on which decision of the detention was

upheld by the Board;

7 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

(D)it has been submitted that for illegal detention,

petitioner is entitled for compensation, amounting to

50,00,000/-;

₹

(E)It has been further submitted that ingredients

required to be in existence for passing of detention

order and observations to that effect that petitioner

was likely to be released on bail and if he was

released on bail, the material on record must reveal

that petitioner would indulge in prejudicial activity

again if not detained;

(F)It was contended that petitioner was not knowing

English, whereas detention order was in English and

it was not served upon him in vernacular, as such it

was incumbent upon respondent No. 3 to apprise him

grounds of detention in local dialect and also to

inform regarding right of making representation;

(G)It has been further submitted that petitioner should

have been provided ground of his detention in the

language to make him known as he was not knowing

English language ;

8 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

(H)it is nowhere mentioned that after arrest of the

petitioner the crime of drug trafficking in the area had

been reduced and he was likely to be enlarged on

bail in recent future, which was compulsory to be

reflected in the impugned order of detention of the

petitioner.

13. It has been submitted that detention order is in violation of

provisions of Articles 21, 22, especially Article 22(5) of the Constitution of

India.

14. It has been further submitted that detention order has not

been executed in terms of Section 4 of PIT NDPS Act. It has been

further contended that in proposal dated 19.4.2025 submitted for

detention of the petitioner, Superintendent of Police, Kangra had failed to

mention even that after the arrest of the petitioner there was reduction of

crime and, therefore, drastic order to detain the petitioner for three

months had been obtained by placing on record incomplete information.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring the judgments

passed by the various Courts, has submitted that at the time of passing of

order of preventive detention, it must be recorded that detenu is in

custody and there is sufficient material on record that if he or she is

released, then he or she would indulge in similar activity. It indicates that

9 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

the detention order has to be passed apprehending the release of the

detenu either on bail or on acquittal and detention order can be passed

even after or on apprehension of enlargement of accused on bail or on

acquittal, but subject to availability of material on record specifying the

conditions required for passing of detention order. According to learned

counsel for the petitioner, these ingredients are missing in impugned

detention order.

16. It has been further submitted that detention order are

violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as grounds

for detention were never communicated to the petitioner.

17. It has been contended that in any case even if first detention

order is upheld, it is apparent from the record that detention of the

petitioner from 6.8.2025 to 11.8.2025 was illegal and, therefore, petitioner

is entitled for 50,00,000/- as compensation.

₹

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

judgments of the Apex Court, this High Court and various other High

Courts in Harikrishan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1962

SC 911; Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India and

others, (1995) 4 SCC 51; Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura

and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1333 = AIR 2022 SC 4715; Ameena

Begum Vs. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587; Nawang Sonam

10 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.WP No. 11 of 2025, decided on

4.6.2025; Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.WP No.

12 of 2025, decided on 4.7.2025; Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh, Cr.WP No. 13 of 2025, decided on 6.8.2025; Dhanyam Vs.

State of Kerala and others, Criminal Appeal No. 2897 of 2025,

decided on 6.6.2025; Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Vs. The State of

Nagaland and others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 4872-4873 of 2024,

decided on 5.3.2025; Taimoor Khan Vs. Union of India and Another,

2024 SCC Online Del 416; Jahanera Bibi Vs. Union of India and

others, 2025 SCC Online Cal. 7003; Kaikam Kipgen Vs. State of

Manipur, 2023 SCC Online Mani 86 and Kamlesh Vs. The State of

Madhya Pradesh and others, Writ Petition No. 26923 of 2019,

decided on 10.2.2020.

19. In response it has been contended that detention order has

been passed by taking into consideration entire material available against

the petitioner, his repeated involvement in drug trafficking cases,

registration of 5-6 FIRS against him under the NDPS Act. It has been

submitted in the reply that detention period of detenu runs from the date

of detention which in present case is 9.6.2025 and, therefore, there is no

illegal detention from 6.8.2025 to 11.8.2025, because the period of three

months detention was going to expire on 9.9.2025.

11 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

20. Petitioner was detained on 9.6.2025. Thereafter he

preferred Writ Petition against detention order on 23.6.2025, which

indicate that petitioner, either was knowing the language or was made to

understand the gist of the detention order so as to enable him to take

decision to file Writ Petition in the High Court invoking jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it is apparent that

he was well informed in writing about his right to assail the detention

order.

21. Order of granting bail to the petitioner does not dis-entitle

the competent authority from passing a preventive detention order by

taking into consideration entire material placed before it. Enlargement of

an accused/undertrial prisoner on bail is based on entirely different

consideration, whereas preventive detention order has to be passed in

consonance with the provisions of the PIT NDPS Act and thus grant of

bail by the competent Court cannot be a ground to construe that

preventive detention order is illegal.

22. It has been informed that respondents-Board has not

extended the period of detention of the petitioner after six months and as

such he has been enlarged on bail as already ordered by the Court.

However, prayer for quashing detention order dated 5.5.2025 and order

dated 5.9.2025 issued, after upholding the detention order dated

12 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

5.5.2025, by the Board and directing further three months detention are

being pressed for the relevancy with prayer of the petitioner seeking

damages of 50,00,000/- has to be adjudicated.

₹

23. Though, petitioner has been released now, however, his

detention for six months was passed on certain material available before

the concerned authority.

24. For adjudicating the issue raised in present petition,

following provisions of PIT NDPS Act, 1988 are relevant:-

“2.Definitions.--In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(a) "appropriate Government" means, as respects a detention order

made by the Central Government or by an officer of the Central

Government, or a person detained under such order, the Central

Government, and as respects a detention order made by a State

Government or by an officer of a State Government, or a person

detained under such order, the State Government;

…. …. ….

3.Power to make orders detaining certain persons.---(1) The

Central Government or a State Government, or any officer of the

Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to

that Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this

section by that Government, or any officer of a State

Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that

Government, specially empowered for the purposes of this

section by that Government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any

person (including a foreigner) that, with a view to preventing him

from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic

substances, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that

such person be detained.

13 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

(2) When any order of detention is made by a State

Government or by an officer empowered by a State

Government, the State Government shall, within ten days,

forward to the Central Government a report in respect of the

order.

(3) For the purposes of clause (5) of article 22 of the

Constitution, the communication to a person detained in

pursuance of a detention order of the grounds on which the

order has been made shall be made as soon as may be

after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days,

and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be

recorded in writing not later than fifteen days, from the date

of detention.

4.Execution of detention orders.---A detention order may be

executed at any place in India in the manner provided for the

execution of warrants of arrest under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

5.Power to regulate place and conditions of detention..---Every

person in respect of whom a detention order has been made shall

be liable--

(a) to be detained in such place and under such conditions

including conditions as to maintenance, interviews or

communication with others, discipline and punishment for

breaches of discipline, as the appropriate Government may,

by general or special order, specify; and

(b) to be removed from one place of detention to another place

of detention, whether within the same State or in another

State by order of the appropriate Government:

Provided that no order shall be made by a State Government

under clause (b) for the removal of a person from one State to another

State except with the consent of the Government of that other State.

…. …. …

10.Cases in which and circumstances under which persons

may be detained for periods longer than three months without

obtaining the opinion of Advisory Board.---(1) Notwithstanding

14 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

anything contained in this Act, any person (including a foreigner) in

respect of whom an order of detention is made under this Act at any

time before the [31st day of July, 1999] may be detained without

obtaining, in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause

(4) of article 22 of the Constitution, the opinion of an Advisory Board for

a period longer than three months but not exceeding six months from

the date of his detention, where the order of detention has been made

against such person with a view to preventing him from engaging in

illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the

Central Government or any officer of the Central Government, not

below the rank of an Additional Secretary to that Government, specially

empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government, is

satisfied that such person engages or is likely to engage in illicit traffic

in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into, out of, through or

within any area highly vulnerable to such illicit traffic and makes a

declaration to that effect within five weeks of the detention of such

person.

Explanation1.--In this sub-section, "area highly vulnerable to such illicit

traffic" means--

(i) the India customs waters;

(ii) the customs airports;

(iii) the metropolitan cities of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Madras and the

city of Varanasi;

(iv) the inland area one hundred kilo meters in width from the coast of

India falling within the territories of the States of Andhra Pradesh, Goa,

Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and

West Bengal and the Union territories of Daman and Diu and

Pondicherry;

(v) the inland area one hundred kilo meters in width from--

(a) the India-Pakistan border in the States of Gujarat, Punjab

and Rajasthan;

(b) the India-Nepal border in the States of Bihar, Sikkim,

Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal;

15 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

(c) the India-Burma border in the States of Arunachal

Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland;

(d) the India-Bangladesh border in the States of Assam,

Meghalaya, Tripura and West Bengal;

(e) the India-Bhutan border in the States of Arunachal

Pradesh, Assam, Sikkim and West Bengal;

(vi) such other area or customs station, as the Central Government

may, having regard to the vulnerability of such area or customs

station, as the case may be, to illicit traffic, by notification in the

Official Gazette, specify in this behalf.

Explanation 2.--For the purposes of Explanation 1, "customs station"

has the same meaning as in clause (13) of section 2 of the Customs

Act, 1962 (52 of 1962).

(2) In the case of any person detained under a detention order to which

the provisions of sub-section (1) apply, section 9 shall have effect

subject to the following modifications, namely:--

(i) in clause (b), for the words "shall, within five weeks", the

words "shall, within four months and two weeks" shall be

substituted;

(ii) in clause (c),--

(a) for the words "the detention of the person

concerned", the words "the continued detention of the

person concerned" shall be substituted;

(b) for the words "eleven weeks", the words "five months

and three weeks" shall be substituted;

(iii) in clause (f), for the words "for the detention", at both the places

where they occur, the words "for the continued detention" shall be

substituted.

11.Maximum period of detention.---The maximum period for

which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention

order to which the provisions of section 10 do not apply and

which has been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9 shall be

one year from the date of detention, and the maximum period for

16 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention

order to which the provisions of section 10 apply and which has

been confirmed under clause (f) of section 9, read with sub-

section (2) of section 10, shall be two years from the date of

detention:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the

power of appropriate Government in either case to revoke or modify

the detention order at any earlier time.”

25. Detention order dated 5.5.2025 and further detention order

dated 5.9.2025 have been issued by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to

the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Though, at the top of this order,

there is mention of Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of

Home, but no where it had been stated that these orders have been

issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

26. In order dated 5.5.2025, Additional Chief Secretary (Home)

to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had categorically stated that he

directed (I directed) the detention of the petitioner in Lala Lajpat Rai

District Jail, Kangra, therefore, order of detention has been passed by

Officer in his individual capacity, but not on behalf of or by the

Government of Himachal Pradesh.

27. Undoubtedly, as provided under Section 3 of PIT NDPS

Act, State Government or any Officer of State Government, not below the

rank of Secretary to the Government, especially empowered for the

17 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

purpose of Section 3 by the Government, on satisfaction, may make an

order directing that such person is to be detained and detention order has

to be supplied as soon as may be after detention but ordinarily not later

than five days, and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be

recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention.

In present case detention order dated 5.5.2025 has been passed by the

Officer not below the rank of Secretary to the Government and detention

order was served upon the petitioner within time prescribed under Section

3(3) of PIT NDPS Act and for that reason only petitioner preferred CWP

No. 10120 of 2025 on 23.6.2025.

28. However, we are of the opinion that for want of specifying

detention centers by the appropriate Government (State Government in

present case) by general or special order, the Additional Chief Secretary

(Home) was having no authority to direct to keep the petitioner in Lala

Lajpat Rai District Jail, Kangra at Dharamshala.

29. Section 5 of PIT NDPS Act provides to regulate place and

conditions of detention which clearly envisaged that appropriate

Government may by general or special order specify the place of

detention and conditions thereof. Appropriate Government in present

case, as provided under Section 2 of PIT NDPS Act is the State

Government, but not its Officer in individual capacity or by virtue of post,

18 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

therefore, places of detention has to be specified by general or special

order by the State Government. In present case such notification or

specifying the places of detention, if any, has not seen the light of the

day.

30. Plea of the petitioner that three months expiry of period of

detention order has to be reckoned from 5.5.2025 is misconceived.

Sections 10 and 11 of PIT NDPS Act clearly depicts that period of

detention has to be taken into consideration from the ‘date of detention’.

Therefore, in present case, for detaining the petitioner w.e.f. 9.6.2025,

three months of detention was expire on 9.9.2025, whereas the Board

has extended the detention period of further three months in August,

2025. In aforesaid facts, it is apparent that claim of the petitioner that he

is entitled for 50,00,000/- on account of illegal detention is not justified

₹

and sustainable.

31. Plea of the petitioner that detention order was not executed

upon him as provided under Sections 72 to 82 of Bhartiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 70 to 80 of Cr.P.C), is misconceived.

Section 4 of PIT NDPS Act provides that detention order is to be

executed in the manner provided for execution of warrants of arrest under

the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS). Thus the words ‘warrants of arrest’ in this

Section refers to ‘warrants of arrest’ issued after conviction, because in a

19 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

case under this Act, the execution of detention order has to take place

after passing of detention order. Therefore, ‘warrant of arrest’ issued

after passing of detention order is akin to ‘warrants of arrest’ issued after

conviction as provided under Section 418(2) of Cr.PC and now under

(Section 458 (2) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), wherein it has

been provided that where the accused is not present in the Court, when

he is sentenced to such imprisonment as mentioned in Section 418(1) of

Cr.P.C (Section 458(1) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the Court

shall issue warrant for his arrest for the purpose of forwarding him to the

jail or other places in which he is to be confined and in such case

sentence shall commence on the date of his arrest/detention.

32. Provisions of Section 4 of the PIT NDPS Act are to be read

with reference to above referred provisions of Sections 418 Cr.P.C and

458 of BNSS and in present case at the time of passing of detention order

detenu was not present before the authority and, therefore, on passing of

detention order for a period provided under the Act, the detention orders

are warrant for arrest of detenu for the purpose of forwarding him to a

place specified for detention in terms of Section 5 of the PIT NDPS Act.

Therefore, execution of detention order upon the petitioner on 9.6.2025,

confining him, is substantial compliance of Section 4 of PIT NDPS Act.

20 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

33. From the material on record, we do not find any violation of

Articles 14, 19, 21 or 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

34. Section 5 of PIT NDPS Act provides that appropriate

Government may by general or special order specify places of detention.

In present case, place of detention has been mentioned in the detention

order as Lala Lajpat Rai District Jail, Kangra at Dharamshala. However, it

is apt to record that detention order has not been passed by the

Government, but by an Officer of the Government, as apparent from the

nature of the detention order, wherein Officer has mentioned that it was

he who was directing detention, but not the State Government.

35. Nothing has been placed on record to depict that

appropriate Government, i.e. State Government in present case, has

issued any general or special order specifying any place of detention,

much less Lala Lajpat Rai District Jail, Kangrat at Dharamshala.

However, detention of the petitioner in the said jail will not become illegal

on this count, as there was sufficient material before the competent

authority/Officer to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner was repeatedly

involving in drug trafficking and the Gold and Silver and other valuable

articles recovered from his house, without having any other source of

income, were indicating that drug trafficking was business of the family of

the petitioner and, therefore, no fault can be found in the detention order

21 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

of the petitioner. But there is irregularity on the part of the State for not

issuing general or special order specifying the places of detention. This

irregularity must be corrected.

36. In view of above discussion we are of the considered

opinion that there is no illegality on the part of the respondents in passing

detention order and implementing thereof except the irregularity with

respect to compliance of Section 5 of the PIT NDPS Act, requiring

issuance of general or special order, specifying the places of detention as

well as conditions for such detention in terms of Section 5 of the PIT

NDPS Act. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner is rejected, however before

parting, it would be apt to issue following directions:-

(i) To issue general or special order, specifying the places of

detention or nature of places which can be used for detaining the detenu

in compliance of order of detention passed by the appropriate

Government or its Officers, as provided under Section 3 of the PIT NDPS

Act.

(ii) Office Order specifying the placing of detention under the

PIT NDPS Act, be issued as earliest as possible, latest by 15

th

January

2026.

(iii). Grounds of detention must be communicated in language

which is known to the detenu to enable him to make effective

22 2026:HHC:850

Cr.WP No. 19 of 2025

representation and in State of Himachal Pradesh detention order must be

communicated in official language of the State, which is Hindi, which is

known to almost every citizen residing in Himachal Pradesh. Copy of

grounds of detention also be communicated, in addition to Hindi, in the

language known to detenu if he is not able to understand Hindi.

(iv) Respondents-State is also directed to specifically inform in

writing the detenu about his right in the language known to the detenu

and in Hindi language of cases informing the detenu about his right to

make representation to detaining authority.

37. Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal

Pradesh shall ensure compliance of aforesaid directions.

The petition stands disposed of, alongwith pending

applications, if any, in aforesaid terms.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),

Judge.

(Romesh Verma),

Judge.

5

th

January, 2026

(Keshav)