Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed a drug peddler’s plea against his detention order passed by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir on May 14 last year.
Dismissing an appeal by the detenue Bashir Ahmad Bhat, a division bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul upheld its single judge’s judgment which had dismissed petition of Bhat against his detention order.
On 14 May 2020 Divisional Commissioner Kashmir had placed Bhat under detention with a view to prevent him from committing any of the acts within the meaning of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
According to police dossier, 53- year old Bhat was born at Kralpora, Kupwara migrated to Barbarshah, Srinagar in 1984 and got married in the City.
Citing the dossier, the court said it reveals that the detenue had no house of his own and he was living initially in a shed at Barbarshah Bund.
The detenue, the dossier said, was initially engaged in cannabis smuggling along with his wife and after few years they started dealing with other Narcotic and Psychotropic substances like Brown sugar and Heroin. “His activities are said to be a threat to maintenance of peaceful atmosphere within the area of East Zone Srinagar,” the court said.
“The detenue was carrying illegal trade of cannabis and drugs to sell them outside Valley. To this effect case FIR No.04/2018 U/S 8/21 and 22 NDPS of P/S Gangyal Jammu was registered against him”.
The court held that the detenue was averred to have developed contacts in and around the area of Srinagar City as well as outside Valley for sale of Narcotic drugs.
The detenue, the court said, was found involved in one more case FIR No.05/2020 U/S 8/20 of P/S R.M.Bagh.
“Both, Dossier and Grounds of Detention refer to and rely on two cases – FIRs, which have been registered against detenue and in which he had been arrested and later released,” the court said.
The contents of the dossier, the court said, squarely rely upon two FIRs, which were registered against detenue in view of his activities which had deleterious effect on our society.
“All that was required to be communicated in view of issuance of detention order has been conveyed to detenue when detention order, grounds of detention and two FIRs, in which he had been arrested and released, were made available to him; explained to him in his vernacular; and he was also informed to make representation against his detention”.
The court held that the averments made in the Dossier and Grounds of Detention were those facts which emerged in view of contents of two FIRs.
The court pointed out that in the present case the conclusions drawn by detaining authority were derivable from two FIRs as these FIRs give the account of details of prejudicial activities of detenue that he had ventured into. “So, there is no force in the submission of petitioner that detenu has not been given or provided copy of Dossier”.
Had detenue, the court said, been interested in making a representation against his detention, he could have made such a representation when copies of grounds of detention and two FIRs were furnished to him, read in his vernacular and was informed to make a representation against his detention. “He, however, did not do so,” the court said and added that the judgement need not be interfered with.