DISHANT GOEL vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — CRWP/9307/2025
Disposed: --ALLOWED on 13th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC011372762025
Filing Number
CRWP/71939/2025
Filing Date
26-Aug-2025
Registration No
CRWP/9307/2025
Registration Date
26-Aug-2025
Judge
Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Coram
Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
Bench Type
Single
Category
42.1 - CRIMINAL WRIT (HABEAS CORPUS) ( 311 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL BRANCH
Decision Date
13-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--ALLOWED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DISHANT GOEL
Adv. ABHAY BHARDWAJ
-
2.UNION OF INDIA
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
-
2.UNION OF INDIA
-
3.JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA
-
4.DGP, CHANDIGARH POLICE
-
5.S.P, CHANDIGARH
-
6.SUPERINTENDENT, MODEL JAIL, BURAIL, CHANDIGARH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-May-2026
Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF
Case Summary: CRWP/9307/2025 - Dishant Goel v. Union of India Court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh Date of Judgment: 13.05.2026 Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj Decision The court QUASHED the preventive detention order against petitioner Dishant Goel, finding it violated constitutional safeguards and fundamental rights. The detention order dated 02.05.2025 (modified 13.05.2025) under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 was set aside. Key Findings 1. Absence of "Live and Proximate Link": The ~5-month delay between proposal (08.01.2025) and detention order (02.05.2025), followed by further delay in execution (30.05.2025), violated the constitutional requirement that preventive detention must maintain immediacy and urgency. The court found this administrative lethargy vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 2. Violation of Article 22(5) Rights: The failure to supply the detention proposal itself—which formed the foundational document initiating the detention process—deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to represent against detention. The proposal wasn't merely inter-departmental correspondence but contained material particulars critical to challenging the detention's necessity. 3. Punitive Rather Than Preventive: The detention assumed punitive character because: (a) the petitioner had already secured bail on 27.12.2024; (b) no allegation of bail violation or subsequent prejudicial activity was made; (c) ordinary criminal law remedies were never exhausted or meaningfully considered; and (d) preventive detention was invoked immediately after bail, suggesting intent to nullify judicial orders rather than prevent future crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-Aug-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CRWP/9307/2025
Case Summary: CRWP/9307/2025 - Dishant Goel v. Union of India Court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh Date of Judgment: 13.05.2026 Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj Decision The court QUASHED the preventive detention order against petitioner Dishant Goel, finding it violated constitutional safeguards and fundamental rights. The detention order dated 02.05.2025 (modified 13.05.2025) under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 was set aside. Key Findings 1. Absence of "Live and Proximate Link": The ~5-month delay between proposal (08.01.2025) and detention order (02.05.2025), followed by further delay in execution (30.05.2025), violated the constitutional requirement that preventive detention must maintain immediacy and urgency. The court found this administrative lethargy vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 2. Violation of Article 22(5) Rights: The failure to supply the detention proposal itself—which formed the foundational document initiating the detention process—deprived the petitioner of an effective opportunity to represent against detention. The proposal wasn't merely inter-departmental correspondence but contained material particulars critical to challenging the detention's necessity. 3. Punitive Rather Than Preventive: The detention assumed punitive character because: (a) the petitioner had already secured bail on 27.12.2024; (b) no allegation of bail violation or subsequent prejudicial activity was made; (c) ordinary criminal law remedies were never exhausted or meaningfully considered; and (d) preventive detention was invoked immediately after bail, suggesting intent to nullify judicial orders rather than prevent future crime. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts