42 FIRs, 9 NDPS cases: Drug detainee invokes ‘Live Proximity’ doctrine before HP High Court
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
Shimla, July 2
Can a preventive detention order survive judicial scrutiny when the last criminal case relied upon is over a year old? This question has come before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a petition filed by an alleged drug trafficker facing 42 criminal cases, including nine under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Anil Kumar alias Pintu has challenged his preventive detention, contending that the detention order dated January 23, 2026, and its subsequent extension were vitiated by the absence of “live proximity” between the alleged criminal activities and the detention order.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel Mukesh Sharma argued that the last NDPS FIR against the petitioner was registered on May 24, 2024, nearly one-and-a-half years before the detention order. He submitted that “the proceedings as such suffer from a defect of live proximity” and further contended that this aspect was not brought to the notice of the Himachal Pradesh Advisory Board, which recommended extension of the detention. The petitioner also alleged that he was not informed that he could submit a representation to the authority which had passed the detention order.
The State opposed the plea. During the hearing, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi recorded the State’s submissions that 42 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, including nine under the NDPS Act. The order further records the State’s submission that the petitioner keeps 12 dogs at his residence and that his son is also involved in the illegal drug trade. These observations were recorded as submissions made on behalf of the State and not as findings of the Court.
The Bench granted the petitioner’s request for time to file a replication and listed the matter for further hearing on July 14, 2026.
The case is legally significant as it brings into focus the doctrine of “live proximity”, a settled principle in preventive detention law requiring a reasonable nexus between the alleged prejudicial activities and the detention order. The High Court’s eventual ruling could clarify whether the passage of time between the last alleged offence and the detention order is sufficient to invalidate preventive detention in cases involving alleged habitual narcotics offenders.
About the Author
