-1- Criminal Writ Petition No.1009 of 2006. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Writ Petition No.1009 of 2006. Date of Decision: May 13 , 2010. Harjinder Kaur ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner Harjinder Kaur is in the nature of habeas corpus for setting aside the order of detention of her (petitioner's) husband Gurdeep Singh dated 10.4.2006 -2- Criminal Writ Petition No.1009 of 2006. (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Secretary Home, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.2) under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short `the Act'). I have heard Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State – respondent and have gone through the records of the case. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no material on record to show the basis for passing the order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) against the husband of the petitioner and that the said order has been passed without proper application of mind. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State-respondent, has contended that the impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed by the competent authority after considering the fact that Gurdeep Singh, husband of the petitioner, had links with smugglers of Pakistan's Intelligence Agency (ISI) and there were allegations against him (Gurdeep Singh) that he had been bringing counterfeit Indian currency, Heroin, Smack, opium and illegal arms etc. from Pakistan. Besides, Gurdeep Singh had been disclosing confidential secrets of Indian Military to the ISI. After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no interference -3- Criminal Writ Petition No.1009 of 2006. is called for by this Court in the impugned order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On 17.3.2010, when the matter was taken up for hearing by this Court, reply filed to this petition by way of affidavit of Harinderjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police Rural-II, Amritsar, on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, and the documents attached therewith were considered. In the said reply, it has been categorically and emphatically stated that the order (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 against Gurdeep Singh, husband of the petitioner, is quite legal, valid and speaking order, which was passed on the ground that Gurdeep Singh had been engaging in import, transportation and possession of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and that with a view to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future his detention was necessary. During arguments on 17.3.2010, it transpired that in a number of cases the other smugglers/accused had disclosed the name of Gurdeep Singh as the person from whom they had acquired the contraband for which they were being interrogated. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court on 17.3.2010 ordered that ten Zimnies on the basis of which the impugned order had been passed be produced on the next date of hearing to ascertain as to whether the name of the husband of the petitioner had figured at the time of interrogation of those persons involved in the cases. The matter was then adjourned to 20.4.2010, on which date Assistant Sub Inspector Sushil Kumar -4- Criminal Writ Petition No.1009 of 2006. produced the original record of seven cases wherein during interrogation the accused persons had named Gurdeep Singh and had also told the manner in which the contraband had come into their possession. The Zimnies in this regard were also produced before this Court on 20.10.2010, which were returned to Assistant Sub Inspector Sushil Kumar after perusal. In all the Zimnies, the name of Gurdeep Singh figured as the person from whom the contraband had been acquired by the accused persons, who had been apprehended by the police. Besides, in the reply filed by way of affidavit of Harinderjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police Rural-II, Amritsar, on behalf of Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, it has been mentioned that F.I.R. No.108 dated 25.10.2004 under Sections 411, 414, 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Sections 18 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 3 of the Indian Passport Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act had been registered at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan on the basis of a prior information that one Sukhwant Singh alias Manga son of Gurmukh Singh and Kewal Singh son of Tarlok Singh, Gurdeep Singh (husband of the petitioner) and Sahib Singh son of Nirmal Singh were having links with the smugglers of Pakistan's ISI. In the said First Information Report, it has been alleged that the said persons including Gurdeep Singh bring counterfeit Indian currency, Heroin, Smack, Opium, illegal Arms etc. and also disclose confidential secrets of the Indian Army to the ISI. In -5- Criminal Writ Petition No.1009 of 2006. this case, Gurdeep Singh (husband of the petitioner) along with others was arrested by the police. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Secretary Home, Government of Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.2) under Section 3(1) of the Act is not based on acceptable material. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. May 13 , 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE