# Amit Singh v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1554
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-15
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 128 of 2026
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-54359
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

1554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deferred adjudication of the pleas raised to the stage of framing issues and leading evidence, at the
same time, plea of limitation has been decided in favour of the respondent. However, other
submissions made that, at this stage itself, the plaint be rejected without holding trial, cannot be
accepted as per the law laid down and referred.

19. Considering the record of proceedings and the scope of order under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, irrespective of the findings recorded in earlier litigations which may be germane and relevant
to the controversy involved in the present suit also, the same can be considered even in the form of
preliminary issues that may be framed by the trial court, if pressed. The submissions advanced in
this revision go beyond the purview of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, except the findings recorded on the
question of limitation at this stage.

20. As far as the grievance raised qua inability to raise constructions on account of order of
status quo operating in F.A.F.O. No. 1104 of 2024, no comment can be made in these proceedings
and the parties are at liberty to raise their respective pleas in the said appeal itself.

CONCLUSION

21. Consequently, the revision is allowed in part.

22. The finding recorded by the trial court in the order impugned only to the effect that
challenge laid by the respondent is not barred by limitation, is hereby set aside, however, the same
shall be adjudicated after framing of issues.

23. Considering the nature and length of litigation, it is directed that the trial court shall frame
issues within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.
Thereafter, the suit shall be posted for further proceedings including adjudication based upon
preliminary issues, if they are framed, and the court shall make all endeavour to dispose of the
proceedings in accordance with law with utmost expedition without granting unnecessary
adjournment to the parties, by fixing short dates on weekly basis.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1554
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 128 of 2026

Amit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
4 All. Amit Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1555
Issue for Consideration
Whether petitioner is detained illegally in pursuance of the detention order dated 8.8.2025 passed under
Section 3(1) of P.I.T.N.D.P.S. Act passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 6.11.2025 passed by
respondent no.4 and whether impugned order dated 8.8.2025 passed by respondent no.3 as well as
confirmation order dated 6.11.2025 passed by respondent no.4 are liable to be quashed

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14, 21, 22 & 226 (Habeas Corpus); The Prevention of
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988- Section 3(1)- The
detention orders can be passed against detenues in jail provided the officers passing such orders
can justify the detention with reference to the material on record and can also justify that the
detenues will indulge in similar activities, if set at liberty- No such 'satisfaction' recorded by the
detaining officers in the present case- The detaining authority should apply its mind and show
awareness to the "grounds of detention". The detaining authority must be reasonably satisfied
on the basis of cogent material, that there is likelihood of detenue of indulging in such activities
on being released from jail. The "reasons to believe" should be based on reliable material and
real possibility of detenue misusing his liberty in case of release from jail. The impugned orders
are self-explanatory and clearly show that they have been passed without application of mind
and without reference to any of the 'grounds of detention' of the petitioner. Such a state of
affairs is deplorable and needs to be redressed at the earliest by the Union Government in the
larger interest of the criminal justice delivery system.

Impugned orders passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained as per the settled law.
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have paid mere lip service to the mandatory requirements of law. They
have mechanically mentioned that they are satisfied that petitioner is required to be detained so
as to prevent him from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances. Such 'satisfaction' was required to have been spelt out after application of mind by
reference to separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority, which has not been
done. None of the orders impugned show any application of mind and no "grounds of detention"
have been recorded therein.

Held- The conduct of respondent nos. 3 & 4 is highly arbitrary and illegal. They have exercised their powers
in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Despite being public servants, their conduct
reflects scant respect for law of land the dereliction of duty on their part, which can be considered to be
misconduct in service on their part, since they have failed to perform their duties in accordance with law-
Impugned orders quashed.
 Petition allowed. (E-15)

(Para 9, 10, 11 & 12)
Case Law Cited
Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Vs. State of Nagaland and others, 2025 SCC Online SC 502; Binod Singh v.
District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 416; Union of India v. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342;

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950; The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Habeas Corpus; P.I.T.N.D.P.S. Act; Grounds of detention: No satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority;
That detenues will indulge in similar activities, if set at liberty;

Case Arising From
1556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prayer for Issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding all the respondents to release the petitioner from their
illegal detention in pursuance of the detention order dated 8.8.2025 passed under Section 3(1) of
P.I.T.N.D.P.S. Act passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 6.11.2025 passed by respondent no.4 and to
set petitioner at liberty forthwith and may further be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 8.8.2025
passed by respondent no.3 as well as confirmation order dated 6.11.2025 passed by respondent no.4.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Mishra, Shri Krishna Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., G.A., Shiv Kumar Pal

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
& Hon'ble Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Mishra and Shri
Piyush Panday learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri S.K. Pal, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India assisted by Sri Prem Shanker Prasad appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and perused the
material on record.

2. This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding all the respondents to release the petitioner from
their illegal detention in pursuance of the detention order dated 8.8.2025 passed under Section 3(1)
of P.I.T.N.D.P.S. Act passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 6.11.2025 passed by respondent
no.4 and to set petitioner at liberty forthwith and may further be pleased to quash the impugned
order dated 8.8.2025 passed by respondent no.3 as well as confirmation order dated 6.11.2025
passed by respondent no.4.

(ii) To issue a writ or any other such order or direction as may be deemed just fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the writ petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:-

(I) While passing the detention order dated 08.08.2025, provisions of section 3 (3) of the Act
has not been complied with which mandates that for the purpose of clause (5) of Article 22 of the
Constitution of India, the communication to a person detained in pursuance to detention order of
grounds on which the order has been made shall be made as soon as may be after detention, but
ordinarily not later than 5 days and in exceptional circumstances and for reason to be recorded in
writing not later than 15 days, from the date of detention.

(ii) The petitioner was not supplied with complete and legible set of relied upon documents
along with the detention order itself which is a gross violation of the procedure itself.

(iii) The impugned order was primarily issued on two ill-founded assumptions that if enlarged
on bail, the Detenu will abscond and vitiate the trial, and would again indulge in the same crime for
4 All. Amit Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1557
monetary benefits, without relying upon any such fact or circumstance or document to substantiate
such an ill-founded apprehension. The same has been done solely with the motive of keeping the
Detenu/Petitioner in unwarranted and uninterrupted custody away from the place where he is facing
trial and delaying the trial, for reasons best known to the sponsoring Authority and detaining
authority. It has been passed solely on unfounded apprehensions, without any cogent material based
on stale grounds having no live proximity with the alleged prejudicial activity leading to no
subjective satisfaction and application of mind by Detaining Authority thereby violating the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

(iv) 5 months period of incarceration of detention period is passed already.

(v) The impugned orders are arbitrary, mechanical, and suffer from a fatal flaw between the
alleged prejudicial activities relied upon by the detaining authority. The alleged prejudicial
activities primarily stem from two pending under trial cases: (i) the 2013 DRI case (Cr. No.
338/XVIII/2013/GI), which dates back over 12 years, and (ii) the October 2024 NCB case (Cr. No.
VIII/35/DZU/2024), in relation to which the petitioner was arrested on 26.10.2024. Despite the
petitioner being in continuous judicial custody since 26.10.2024, in the 2024 case, the detention
order was passed only on 08.08.2025-after an unexplained delay of approximately 10 months from
the date of the alleged offence in October 2024 from the date of arrest.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the petition on the basis of
the material brought on record by way of counter affidavits filed before this Court.

5. Since the detention order dated 8.8.2025 passed by respondent no.3, Joint Secretary,
(P.I.T.N.D.P.S.), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
(P.I.T.N.D.P.S. Division), New Delhi and order dated 6.11.2025 passed by respondent no.4,
Deputy Secretary, (P.I.T.N.D.P.S.), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, New Delhi, are sought to be quashed in this petition, they are required to be considered
and for ready reference, they are hereby quoted below:-

I. Order Dated 8.8.2025:-

SECRET

F-No. U-11011/37/2025-PITNDPS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
(PITNDPS UNIT)

Room No. 156B, 1st Floor

North Block, New Delhi

Dated: 8th August, 2025

ORDER
1558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Whereas, I, Anupam Prakash, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially
empowered under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, (as amended), am satisfied with respect to the person known as
Amit Singh S/o Omvir Singh that with a view to preventing him from engaging in-illicit
trafficking of narcotic drugs & psychotropic substance, in future, it is necessary to make the
following order:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, (as amended), I direct that the
said Amit Singh S/o Omvir Singh, R/o G 45 Lajpat Nagar Part I, New Delhi 110024 be
detained and kept in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

Sd/-

8.8.2025

(Anupam Prakash)

Joint Secretary to the Government of India

Amit Singh S/o Omvir Singh,

R/o G 45 Lajpat Nagar Part I,

New Delhi 110024.

ii. Order dated 6.11.2025:-

F. No. U-11012/25/2025-PITNDPS
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
PITNDPS Division

2 Fioor Room No 202. Jeevan

Tara Building. Parliament

Street. New Delhi

Date: 06 November 2025

ORDER

WHEREAS, an Order No. U-11011/37/2025-PITNDPS dated 08.08 2025 was issued by
the Detaining Authority I.e. Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 in respect of Amit Singh S/o Sh. Omvir Singh R/O G45, Lajpat
Nagar, Part I New Delhi-110024.
4 All. Amit Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1559

AND WHEREAS, the said Order was executed upon Amit Singh S/o Sh. Omvir Singh on
05.09.2025 who is currently lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

AND WHEREAS, the matter of Amit Singh S/o Sh. Omvir Singh was placed before the
State Advisory Board (PITNDPS), Tamil Nadu, which is of the Opinion, that sufficient cause is
made out for detention of the detenu Amit Singh S/o Sh. Omvir Singh.

AND WHEREAS the Central Government has considered the opinion of the State
Advisory Board (PITNDPS), Tamil Nadu.

NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conterred by Section 9(f) of the
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, the Central
Government hereby confirms the aforesaid Detention Order dated 08.08.2025 and further directs
under Section 11 of the said Act that Amit Singh S/O Sh. Omvir Singh be detained for a period or
one year from the date of his detention i.e. 05.09.2025.

Sd/-

6/11/2025
(Kishor Bandyopadhyay)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
E-mail: ds.pitndps@gov.in

To.
Amit Singh S/o Sh Omvir Singh, a PITNDPS detenue
Through: The Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

Copy to:-
1. The Superintendent, District Jail, Gautam Buddha Nagar with the request to serve the order on
the detenue and return a dated acknowledgment to the undersigned. An extra copy of the Order is
enclosed for this purpose.
2. The Superintendent, Central Prison. Puzhal, Chennai
3 The Deputy Director (Ops), Narcotics Control Bureau, Deihi Headquarter.
4. The Competent Authority (SAFEMA), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Delhi. A
copy of Grounds of Detention is also enclosed.
5 The Sub-Assistant Registrar. COFEPOSA Section, High Court. Madras-600104

Sd/-
6/11/2025
(Kishor Bandyopadhyay)
Deputy Secretary to the Government of India
E-mail: ds.pitndps@gov.in
1560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The Apex Court in the case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary Vs. State of Nagaland and
others, 2025 SCC Online SC 502 has considered the scheme of P.I.T.N.D.P.S. Act from paragraph
nos. 7 to 10 quoted herein below:-

"7. It would be apposite at this stage to take note of the statutory regime of the Act of 1988.
Section 3(1) thereof empowers the authorized officers, either of the Central Government or of a
State Government, to detain any person with a view to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit
traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 3(2) requires a State Government
that passes such a detention order to forward a report of the same to the Central Government
within ten days. Section 3(3) mandates communication of the grounds on which the detention order
has been made to the detenu as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five
days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than
fifteen days from the date of detention. The sub-section records that this requirement is for the
purposes of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which mandates such communication as soon as may
be. Section 6 of the Act of 1988 provides that the grounds of detention are severable and an order
of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the
grounds is either found to be vague, nonexistent, irrelevant or not connected with such persons or
is invalid for any other reason. Section 6 specifically records that where a person has been
detained pursuant to an order of detention under Section 3(1), which has been made on two or
more grounds, such order shall be deemed to have been made separately on each ground. This
indicates that the order of detention must be accompanied by the 'grounds of detention' made by
the detaining authority itself. Section 11 of the Act of 1988 speaks of the maximum period of
detention and states that the same may be extended up to 2 (two) years from the date of detention.

8. We may now note precedential law on the subject. In Kamarunnissa v. Union of India,
(1991) 1 SCC 128 the detenus were already in judicial custody at the time the orders of preventive
detention were passed against them. This Court affirmed that detention orders could be validly
passed against detenus who were in jail, provided the officers passing the orders were alive to the
factum of the detenus being in custody and there was material on record to justify the conclusion
that they would indulge in similar activities, if set at liberty. Reference was made to the earlier
decision of this Court in Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 416
wherein it was held that there must be cogent material before the officer passing the detention
order to infer that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and such an inference must be drawn
from the material on record and must not be the ipse dixit of the officer passing such order. This
Court, therefore, emphasized that before passing the detention order in respect of a person who is
in jail, before passing the detention order in respect of a person who is in jail the concerned
authority must satisfy himself and such satisfaction must be reached on the basis of cogent material
that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and, further, if released on bail,
the material on record must reveal that he/she would indulge in prejudicial activity again, if not
detained.

9. On similar lines, in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 5 SCC 244, a 3-Judge Bench of
this Court affirmed that, where a detention order is passed against a person already in jail, there
should be a real possibility of the release of that person on bail, that is, he must have moved a bail
application which is pending. It was observed that if no bail application is pending it logically
4 All. Amit Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1561
followed that there is no likelihood of the person in jail being released on bail. The Bench,
however, pointed out that the exception to this Rule would be where a co-accused, whose case
stood on the same footing, was granted bail. The Bench cautioned that details in this regard have
to be recorded, otherwise the statement would be mere ipse dixit and cannot be relied upon. The
law laid down in Rekha (supra) was reiterated and followed in Huidrom Konungjao Singh v. State
of Manipur, (2012) 7 SCC 181.

10. Earlier, in Union of India v. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342, this Court observed
that, where detention orders are passed against persons who are already in jail, the detaining
authority should apply its mind and show awareness in the grounds of detention of the chances of
release of such persons on bail. It was observed that the detaining authority must be reasonably
satisfied, on the basis of cogent material, that there is a likelihood of the detenu's release and in
view of his/her antecedent activities, which are proximate in point of time, he/she must be detained
in order to prevent him/her from indulging in such prejudicial activities. It was held that an order
of detention would be valid in such circumstances only if the authority passing the order is aware
of the fact that the detenu is actually in custody; the authority has a reason to believe, on the basis
of reliable material, that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail; and that,
upon such release, he/she would, in all probability, indulge in prejudicial activities; and it is felt
essential to detain him/her to prevent him/her from so doing. This principle was again reiterated
and applied in Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad, (2019), 20 SCC 609."

9. The Apex Court in the case of Kamarunnisa Vs. Union of India (supra) has held that the
detention orders can be passed against detenues in jail provided the officers passing such orders can
justify the detention with reference to the material on record and can also justify that the detenues
will indulge in similar activities, if set at liberty. In this case, we do not find any such 'satisfaction'
recorded by the detaining officers. The ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of
Binod Singh Vs. District Magistrate (supra) and Rekha Vs. Tamil Nadu (supra) are to the same
effect. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Paul Manickam (supra) has also held
that the detaining authority should apply its mind and show awareness to the 'grounds of
detention'. The detaining authority must be reasonably satisfied on the basis of cogent material,
that there is likelihood of detenue of indulging in such activities on being released from jail. The
'reasons to believe' should be based on reliable material and real possibility of detenue misusing
his liberty in case of release from jail. The impugned orders are self-explanatory and clearly show
that they have been passed without application of mind and without reference to any of the
'grounds of detention' of the petitioner. Such a state of affairs is deplorable and needs to be
redressed at the earliest by the Union Government in the larger interest of the criminal justice
delivery system.

10. If we consider the aforesaid impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 3 & 4 in the light
of the settled legal as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mortuza Hussain Choudhary
(supra), we find that the orders passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained as per the settled
law. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have paid mere lip service to the mandatory requirements of law. They
have mechanically mentioned that they are satisfied that petitioner is required to be detained so as
to prevent him from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Such 'satisfaction' was required to have been spelt out after application of mind by reference to
1562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
separate grounds of detention made by the detaining authority, which has not been done. None of
the orders impugned show any application of mind and no 'grounds of detention' have been
recorded therein.

11. It is settled law that order passed by public servant should stand on its own legs. Any
pleadings in support of impugned order cannot cure the defect in the order.

12. Therefore, the conduct of respondent nos. 3 & 4 is highly arbitrary and illegal. They have
exercised their powers in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Despite
being public servants, their conduct reflects scant respect for law of land the dereliction of duty on
their part, which can be considered to be misconduct in service on their part, since they have failed
to perform their duties in accordance with law.

13. We leave it open for the employer to take suitable action against respondent nos. 3 & 4,
since dereliction of duty by them will ultimately benefit the detenue. We find that this state of
affairs is continuing for long despite numbers of orders passed by the courts quashing such illegal
and non-speaking orders passed by detaining authorities.

14. We have no option but to quash the impugned orders dated 8.8.2025 and 6.11.2025 passed
by respondent nos. 3 and respondent no.4.

15. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

16. The above noted petition is allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1562
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 365 of 2025

Akshit Pandey (Minor) & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether the petitioner, being the natural and legal guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor, the
mother of the corpus, died on 10.02.2025 and since then, the corpus is in the custody of respondent Nos. 4
and 5, who are the maternal aunt and uncle of the corpus.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226 (Habeas Corpus)- In proceedings of habeas corpus
relating to custody of a minor, the paramount consideration for the Court is the welfare and best