The Delhi High Court set aside a preventive detention order issued against Validad Khan @ Mullah under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988. The Court held that the detention order failed to establish any likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail despite being in judicial custody and relied on material whose relevance was not explained. The Bench concluded that the order violated constitutional safeguards and could not be sustained.
Background of the Case
The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 20 March 2025 issued under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, directing his preventive detention at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
According to the grounds of detention, authorities alleged that the petitioner was involved in multiple offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These included:
- FIR No. 43/2024, registered at PS Crime Branch, Delhi under Sections 21/27A/29/31/32 NDPS Act, in which the petitioner was in judicial custody.
- FIR No. 223/2019, registered at PS Special Cell, Delhi under Sections 21/29/61/85 NDPS Act, where the trial was pending and the petitioner had been granted bail on 1 December 2023.
- FIR No. 13/2013, registered at PS Special Cell, Delhi under Sections 21/29/61/85 NDPS Act, in which the petitioner had been convicted and sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000, though the sentence was later suspended during appeal.
The detention order also referred to alleged criminal involvement of the petitioner’s family members and stated that 21,935 grams of heroin and other drugs had been seized across cases allegedly involving him.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner challenged the detention order on several grounds.
First, it was argued that although the order acknowledged that the petitioner was already in judicial custody in FIR No. 43/2024, it failed to note that he had not applied for bail. The order also recorded that the co-accused’s bail application had already been rejected, yet did not explain why preventive detention was necessary.
Second, it was submitted that preventive detention is preventive and not punitive, and therefore prior involvement in criminal cases could not by itself justify such detention.
Third, the petitioner alleged delay in both passing and executing the detention order. The last FIR was registered in March 2024, whereas the detention order was issued only in March 2025 and executed in April 2025.
The petitioner further argued that references to FIRs against his family members were irrelevant and copies of those FIRs were not supplied to him, thereby violating his right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
It was also submitted that the bail rejection order of the co-accused was supplied only in English and not in Urdu, the language known to the petitioner.
Respondents’ Submissions
The Union of India and the State defended the detention order.
They argued that the petitioner had repeatedly engaged in NDPS offences whenever he was released from custody. After his sentence in the 2013 case was suspended in 2019, he was implicated in another NDPS case in December 2019, and after obtaining bail in December 2023 he was again implicated in FIR No. 43/2024. According to the respondents, this showed a clear propensity to re-offend.
The respondents also contended that references to cases against the petitioner’s family members demonstrated the existence of a broader criminal network.
They further argued that there was no delay in the process because the detention proposal was processed after filing of the charge-sheet and the order was later confirmed by the Advisory Board.
Court’s Analysis
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja examined whether the preventive detention order met the legal requirements.
The Court noted that the petitioner was already in judicial custody and had not even applied for bail at the time the detention order was passed. Despite this, the order did not record any material suggesting that he was likely to be released on bail.
The Court emphasized the principle governing preventive detention and observed:
“Where the person concerned is already in custody at the time when the detention order is passed, the Competent Authority must, on the basis of cogent and tangible material, and not on mere apprehension, arrive at a conclusion that such person is likely to be released on bail and that, upon such release, he would continue to indulge in prejudicial activities.”
Since the detention order did not reflect such satisfaction, the Court held that it was unsustainable.
The Court also found that references to FIRs against the petitioner’s family members were included without explaining their relevance. This, the Bench said, amounted to reliance on extraneous material and prejudiced the petitioner’s right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).
Additionally, the Court held that failure to supply the bail rejection order of the co-accused in Urdu prevented the petitioner from effectively challenging the detention order.
The Bench further observed that there was unexplained delay in passing and executing the detention order, which weakened the justification for preventive detention.
Decision of the Court
The Court ultimately held that the detention order dated 20 March 2025 could not be sustained in law.
It set aside the order and directed that the petitioner shall no longer be kept in detention pursuant to the impugned order.
However, the Court clarified that the observations in the judgment were limited to the challenge against the detention order and would not affect the merits of criminal cases pending against the petitioner.
Case Details
Case Title: Validad Khan @ Mullah v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 2541/2025
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Date of Judgment: 12 March 2026
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Sia Das, Ms. Ria Das
Counsel for Respondents: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, Mr. Amol Sinha and others
