Kerala High Court
Afnan. P vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:59735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 837 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
AFNAN. P
AGED 32 YEARS
W/O. MUHAMMED HARIF, POOTHANGARA, KAKKODI,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
BY ADVS.
SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
SRI.P.RAJKUMAR
SRI.KESHAVRAJ NAIR
SHRI.BIJU VIGNESWAR
SHRI.ARUN POOMULLI
SHRI.ABHIRAM.S.
SMT.GAADHA SURESH
SRI.T.K.BABU
SHRI.VISWANATH JAYAN
SMT.AKHILA RADHAKRISHNAN
SMT.SARIGA RAMACHANDRAN M.
SHRI.AKSHAY SHIBU
ESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
MANANCHIRA JUNCTION, PAVAMANI ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WP(Crl.) No.837 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:59735
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.837 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:59735
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 04.04.2025 passed against one Afnas N.P., S/o Assainar ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 ('PITNDPS Act' for brevity). The petitioner herein is the sister of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 09.06.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, the 2nd respondent, on 31.12.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 1st respondent. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu was involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order of detention.
3. Both the cases considered by the jurisdictional authority were registered on 11.04.2024 at different times. Technically, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial WP(Crl.) No.837 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:59735 activity is Crime No.321/2024 of Chevayur Police Station, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The allegation in the said case is that on 11.04.2024 at 2.25 p.m, the detenu was found possessing 110.750 gm of MDMA and 0.730 g of LSD stamps for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions contained under the NDPS Act.
4. We heard Sri. Renjith B.Marar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as passing the detention order, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. The learned counsel further urged that the detaining authority passed the impugned order in a casual manner without arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction, and hence, interference is warranted.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that there is no unreasonable delay in passing Ext.P1 detention WP(Crl.) No.837 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:59735 order. According to the learned Government Pleader, the minimal delay that occurred in mooting the proposal is justifiable as a reasonable time is required by the sponsoring authority to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu was involved and to verify the same before mooting the proposal. He further submits that the impugned order of detention was passed without much delay from the date of the last prejudicial activity, and hence, it could not be said that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped.
7. The records reveal that the impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the involvement of the detenu in criminal activities. As already stated, two cases in which the detenu was involved were considered by the detaining authority for passing the detention order.
8. While considering the contention of the petitioner, sticking to the delay in passing the impugned order, it could not be ignored that an order under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act is having a significant impact on the personal as well as the fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore, such an order could not be passed in a casual manner; instead, it can only be passed on credible materials and after arriving at the requisite objective and WP(Crl.) No.837 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:59735 subjective satisfaction. Furthermore, there exists no inflexible rule requiring a detention order to be issued within a specific time frame following the last prejudicial act. However, when there is an unreasonable delay in making the proposal and passing the detention order, the same would undermine its validity, particularly when no plausible explanation is offered for the delay.
9. Keeping in mind the above, while coming to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that the incident which led to the registration of the last prejudicial activity occurred on 11.04.2024. However, the detenu was not arrested in the said case on the date of detection of the said case, as he had absconded. Later, it was on 26.11.2024 the detenu surrendered in the said case, and he was remanded to judicial custody. The Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act against the detenu only on 31.12.2024. Virtually, there is a delay of around eight and a half months in mooting the proposal after the last prejudicial activity. The said delay cannot be justified as necessary for observing natural justice principles.
9. Curiously, in the impugned order itself, it is admitted that there occurred some delay in mooting the proposal. The reason for the said delay shown in the impugned order is that WP(Crl.) No.837 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:59735 additional time was required to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu was involved. In the case at hand, only two cases formed the basis for proposing and issuing the detention order. The details of those cases were readily available and could have been obtained without delay, given the technological upgradation attained by the law enforcement authority. Therefore, the explanation that additional time was required to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved is not justifiable.
10. It is true that the detenu was absconding after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. However, there is no legal impediment in initiating proceedings under the PITNDPS Act against an accused who had absconded after the last prejudicial activity. On the other hand, when the accused is neither apprehended nor in custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the sponsoring authority should have been more vigilant to take quick action to initiate proceedings under the PITNDPS Act, especially when the accused is qualified to be booked under the said Act.
11. If the sponsoring authority, who mooted the proposal, was having bonafide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti- social activities by the detenu, definitely he would have acted swiftly after the last prejudicial activity. In the case at hand, as WP(Crl.) No.837 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:59735 already stated, there is a delay of more than eight and half months in mooting the proposal. Therefore, nobody could be blamed if it is found that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. The delay of more than eight and half months in mooting the proposal itself shows that the sponsoring authority did not have any genuine apprehension regarding the immediate repetition of criminal activities by the detenu.
12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri.Afnas N.P., forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.837 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:59735
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 837/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION
BEARING NO. HOME-SSC1/10/2025-HOME
DATED 04.04.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.04.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRACK CONSIGNMENT
BEARING CONSIGNMENT NO. RL021568517IN
OF THE INDIA POST.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
02.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE PITNDPS
ADVISORY BOARD.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)
NO.1888/2025/HOME DATED 09.06.2025
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.