The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the six-month detention of a 21-year-old, Atul, for repeatedly engaging in illegal drug trafficking activities even after being released on bail. The Court found the detention order to be necessary for the safety and interest of society.
The order was initially issued by the Commissioner of Indore Division under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT NDPS Act). The petitioner challenged the detention, but the State Government confirmed the order after the Advisory Board reviewed and approved it under Section 9(f) of the Act.
According to the report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Atul had four criminal cases registered against him—three under the NDPS Act and one under the M.P. Excise Act. It was noted that even after being granted bail, he continued his involvement in illegal drug trafficking. He was finally detained on January 17, 2025, while already in custody in connection with one of the NDPS cases.
“The petitioner, who is aged about 21 years, has been found involved in three cases under the NDPS Act and one under the M.P. Excise Act. After being released on bail, he has been continuously committing the crime of illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs,” the Court stated. “Therefore, the impugned order of detention is desirable and in the interest of the society.”
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court Stays Principal’s Appointment Over Violation of Seniority Rule
The petitioner argued that the Commissioner had wrongly specified a six-month detention period, which could have influenced both the Advisory Board and the State Government. However, the Court clarified that under the PIT NDPS Act, the State Government can confirm the period of detention independently, regardless of the duration mentioned in the initial order.
“Even if the authority has fixed the period of detention in the order passed under Section 3(2), the State Government has the power to confirm detention for up to 12 months depending on the Advisory Board’s opinion,” the Court noted.
In its ruling, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, which confirmed that the State Government can approve detention for up to 12 months following the Advisory Board’s recommendation. The three-month limit mentioned in Article 22(4)(a) of the Constitution applies only to the initial stage before the Advisory Board's opinion is received.
“The continuation of detention pursuant to the confirmatory order need not specify the period and may extend up to a maximum of 12 months,” the Court added.
The Court concluded that there was no legal fault in the detention order and dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the detention served a larger societal purpose.
Case Title: Atul versus Union Of India And Others
