High Court Slams State's Preventive Detention of Hisar Woman
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant judgment emphasizing that preventive detention represents an extraordinary power that must be grounded in credible and proximate evidence, not merely past conduct or vague apprehensions. Justice Suvir Sehgal ordered the immediate release of Babli, a woman from Hisar who had been detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act).
Court's Scrutiny of State's Justification
While hearing the petition challenging Babli's detention orders dated May 30 and August 1, 2025, the court found substantial flaws in the state's argument. The Haryana Home Department had authorized her six-month confinement based on her involvement in three NDPS cases. However, Justice Sehgal pointed out that the state could not establish any live and proximate link between her previous conduct and the necessity for preventive custody.
Babli's legal representative highlighted several critical facts during proceedings: only small or intermediate drug quantities were recovered in all three FIRs, she had been convicted in just one case, and she was on bail in the remaining cases while consistently meeting all bail conditions. The counsel referenced the recent Division Bench ruling in Lakhwinder Singh alias Bhindi vs State of Haryana, which established that involvement in multiple NDPS cases alone doesn't justify preventive detention.
State's Arguments Fail to Convince Court
The state government opposed the petition by presenting statistics showing that 121 NDPS cases had been registered in Hisar district this year. They classified Babli as part of a network comprising 562 identified drug accused and described her as a habitual trafficker. The state maintained that a police dossier submitted to the Home Department adequately justified her preventive custody.
Nevertheless, the court identified significant gaps in the state's case. Justice Sehgal noted that despite three FIRs against the petitioner, the prosecution had not pursued cancellation of her bail in one pending case. The judge also highlighted that authorities referenced a police source report alleging her continued involvement in narcotics trafficking, but this report was neither included in the official record nor could state counsel reference it during arguments.
Additionally, the court deemed the first FIR from 2020 as stale material that shouldn't have been considered, citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Ameena Begum vs State of Telangana.
Landmark Ruling on Preventive Detention Powers
In his ruling, Justice Sehgal articulated crucial principles governing preventive detention: Preventive detention is an extraordinary power and has to be exercised sparingly, based on credible and proximate evidence of future criminal activities and not solely on the basis of the past conduct or vague apprehension.
The court consequently set aside all three challenged orders and directed that Babli be released from detention immediately, unless her custody is required in connection with any other criminal case. The judgment also noted that her daughter's representation against the detention had been rejected on June 30.
This ruling reinforces judicial oversight over preventive detention powers and establishes that states must demonstrate concrete evidence of future criminal behavior rather than relying primarily on historical cases when seeking preventive custody.
