Preventive detention cannot be used to defeat bail, says Allahabad High Court

Calling it a “drastic measure” that invades personal liberty, the Allahabad High Court recently set aside a preventive detention order against a man in a drugs case and held that the detaining authority must exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such a “draconian” provision.

Justices Siddharth and Vivek Saran were hearing a man’s plea alleging that he had been illegally arrested and falsely accused in criminal cases by the anti-narcotics task force. He further alleged that after he got bail from the high court in such cases, the investigating agency passed a detention order for one year against him without citing any reasons for it.

“Preventive detention of a person is a drastic measure. An order of preventive detention has the effect of invading a person’s personal liberty. Therefore, the detaining authority should exercise utmost care and caution while invoking such a draconian provision,” the July 7 order read.

Justices Siddharth and Vivek Saran noted that it was the duty of the high court to carefully examine the preventive detention orders so that personal liberty of a person is not compr0mised.

It came on record that at around 5.45 pm on October 21, 2024, when the man was travelling in a car with a person from the anti-narcotics task force, the vehicle was “forcibly stopped” and he was arrested. He claimed to have remained in the force’s “illegal custody” for two days.

The man argued that the task force had “falsely” showed his arrest in connection with a drugs case from a local police station in Agra district to make it look like he had been detained from the spot. The CCTV footage, however, clearly captured the entire incident, showing the task force unlawfully detaining the man and forcibly taking him away, he alleged.

His counsel argued that while the man was in jail in the case, the task force filed another case under UP Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against him. The man was later granted bail by the high court in both cases. Despite his cooperation, the man claimed, the task force passed a detention order and informed him on August 20, 2025, when he was in Agra District Jail.

The man submitted a reply to the detention order with the jail superintendent on August 27, 2025. On October 14, the same year, the man’s reply was rejected by the UP government. Later, on October 17, an advisory board hearing the issue, without giving any reasons, ex parte, upheld the detention order.

Story continues below this ad

‘Drastic measure’

The high court noted that neither the district magistrate nor the Centre nor the advisory board had passed any reasoned order. Terming it “non-application of mind”, the court observed that aside from the man’s criminal history of drugs cases, the authority didn’t have anything on him.

The ruling further underscored the intent of the authorities, which was aimed at continuing the detention of the man after he got the bail in the criminal cases.

“Preventive detention being a hard law, it is axiomatic that an order of preventive detention should be strictly construed. It is the duty of a constitutional court like the High Court to minutely scrutinize an order of preventive detention to ensure that the order of preventive detention squarely falls within the four corners of the relevant law and that the liberty of a person is not unlawfully compromised,” the court stated.

The court, therefore, held the order of preventive detention to be “unjustified” and set it aside.

Story continues below this ad

Misused provisions

Advocates Ajay Kumar Pandey and Arnav Dwivedi appearing for the man argued that the detention order had been passed by the state without looking at any merits and against the provisions of  law, only to harass the man. The order was passed based on four alleged cases registered against the man.

It was also contended that the authorities concerned had misused the provisions of the law as a tool for nullifying the bail orders granted by the high court. The man had been continuously granted bail by the high court but to ensure that the man remained jailed the authorities have now illegally detained him.

The counsel urged that the action was arbitrary, mala fide, and contrary to the settled legal position which held that preventive detention cannot be used as an alternative for punitive action or to get around bail orders. It was also stated by the counsel that the FIRs were registered by the task force in a strange and unreasonable manner where the man had been forcibly and incorrectly involved for alleged violations of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

Advocate Kuldeep Kumar for the authorities concerned  submitted that the man was a habitual offender involved in drugs related crimes and therefore the detention order passed was justified. It was also stated that the district magistrate, state government and advisory board have properly considered the case of the man and his detention order had been confirmed.