Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act, Says Detaining Authority Applied Mind to Material Evidence
Case Name: Kulvinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: CWP-22477-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suvir Sehgal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the preventive detention of the petitioner under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), holding that the detaining authority had properly examined the material evidence and satisfied the conditions necessary to justify detention. Justice Suvir Sehgal observed that the petitioner’s continuous involvement in multiple NDPS cases, along with active participation of his family members in similar offences, established a live and proximate link between his past conduct and the need for preventive custody. The Court clarified that preventive detention aims to deter future acts and does not depend solely on pending criminal trials.
Summary: The petitioner, Kulvinder Singh, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the detention orders dated May 2, 2025, and July 21, 2025, passed under the PITNDPS Act for a period of six months. He argued that the detention was illegal as he was already on bail in all three NDPS cases and there was no fresh material justifying his detention. It was contended that mere registration of FIRs could not warrant preventive custody, relying on Lakhwinder Singh @ Bhindi v. State of Haryana (LPA No. 2654-2025).
The State defended the detention, asserting that the petitioner had misused bail concessions and continued to indulge in the illicit trade of narcotics, along with his family members. The authorities submitted detailed material — including FIRs, recovery memos, FSL reports, and statements — which were duly examined by the Screening Committee and the Advisory Board before confirming the detention.
Justice Sehgal noted that the petitioner was involved in three NDPS cases between 2023 and 2024, with recoveries including 1.2 kg of poppy straw and 7.19 grams of heroin. His brother, sister-in-law, and wife were also found involved in multiple NDPS cases, showing deep-rooted family participation in illicit drug trade. The Court distinguished Lakhwinder Singh’s case, observing that in the present matter, there existed sufficient and credible material connecting the petitioner with continuous trafficking activity. It held that the detaining authority’s satisfaction was based on proper examination of evidence and met the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana (2023) 9 SCC 587.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the detention order was legally valid and supported by sufficient material. It concluded that the detaining authority’s subjective satisfaction was based on relevant considerations and that the petitioner’s continued detention was necessary to prevent further involvement in drug trafficking. No order as to costs was made.