Kerala High Court
Rajani Rupali Guria vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
FRIDAY, THE 25
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
AJANI RUPALI GURIA
R
AGED 25 YEARS
W/O JERIN THOMAS, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU KARA,
MACHIPLAVU POST OFFICE, PADY BHAGAM, MANNAMKANDAM
VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 TATE OF KERALA S REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 HE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA T (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 2 3 HE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF T IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685603 4 HE SUPERINTENDENT T CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695012 Y ADVS. B PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI. K.A. ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIS T WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 3 J U D G M E N T Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. ThepetitionerhereiniswifeofMr.JerinThomas('thedetenu'forthesake of brevity), against whom an order of detention has been passed by the 2nd respondent,invokingpowersunderSection3(1)ofthePreventionofIllicitTraffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988('PITNDPSAct'forthe sake of brevity). 2. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that Ext.P2 detention order was issued on 18.03.2025 based on a proposal submitted by the 3rd respondenton22.11.2024.Ext.P3confirmationorderwaspassedon28.05.2025. For the purpose of passing an order under the PITNDPS Act, three cases were considered by the responders. The details of the cases are as under: (i) Crime No. 57 of 2019 of the Shornur Railway Police Station registered under Sections 20(b)(ii) B & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for the sake of brevity). In the said case, the incident is alleged to have takenplaceon13.06.2019,andthe detenu was arraigned as the 2nd accused.Thecasehasbeenregistered for alleged possession of 2.490 kilograms of Ganja. (ii) Crime No. 64 of 2024 of theNarcoticEnforcementSquad,Adimaly,was registeredunderSection20(b)(ii)Br/w.8(c)&29oftheNDPSAct.Inthe 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 4 saidcase,the1staccusedwasfoundtohavebeeninpossessionof1.3Kg of Ganja.Theformalarrestofthedetenu,whoisallegedtohavebeena conspirator, was effected on 05.12.2024. He was grantedbailinthesaid case on 03.02.2025. (iii) Crime No. 1138 of 2024 of the Adimaly Police Station registered on 08.11.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections20(b)(ii)B&29of theND PSAct,forpossessingabout6.2KgofGanja.Inthesaidcase,the detenu has beenarrayedasthe3rdaccused.Hewasgrantedbailbythe Jurisdictional Court on 29.01.2024. 3. Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing for the detenu, submitted that the detention order is vitiated as thedetainingauthority aswellasthesponsoringauthorityfailedtoconsiderastowhethertheconditions imposedbythejurisdictionalcourtatthetimeofgrantofbailinCrimeNo.64of 2024 and Crime No. 1138 of 2024 were sufficient to curtail the detenu from perpetrating further prejudicial activities. It is urged that except for a passing mention about Crime No.57of2019ofShornurRailwayPoliceStation,andthat despite imposition of conditions, the detenu has indulged in further crimes, the detailsoftheconditionsimposedbythejurisdictionalCourtatthetimeofgrantof bail were not mentioned ortakennoteof.Thelearnedcounselhasalsoreferred to a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Padmakumari v. 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 5 State of Kerala1, wherein this Court had occasion to observe that the jurisdictional authority is bound to take note and also to consider the bail conditionsclampedonthedetenuwhilegrantingbail,beforepassingtheorderof detention. 4. In response, it was submitted by Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, that it is on account of the repeated involvement of the detenu in cases involvingnarcoticdrugsthattheproceedingsunderthePITNDPSActwere initiated.ItispointedoutbythelearnedPublicProsecutorthatfortheinitiationof proceedings under the Act, the involvement of the detenu in only one crime is sufficient.Inthecaseon hand,thedetenugothimselfinvolvedinthreecrimes. He would also refer totheorderanditwassubmittedthatinparagraphNo.8of Ext.P2, the detaining authority has noted that the detenu has blatantly violated the stringent conditions imposed in the earliercasesandthathehasrepeatedly got himself involved in drug cases. 5. We have carefully considered submissions advanced and have perused the records. 6. In the present case, the order of detention has been issued by invokingtheprovisionsofthePITNDPSAct.AperusaloftheStatementofObjects andReasonsoftheActrevealsthatthelegislaturewasdeeplyconcernedwiththe 1 2025:KER:44047 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 6 alarming rise in transit trafficking of illicit narcotic drugs. It was noted that the spillover effects of such trafficking have led to widespread drug abuse and addiction across the country. This trend has not only contributedtotheinternal proliferation of drug abuse but has also triggered a growing illicit demand for narcoticsubstanceswithinthecountry.Itwasunderstoodthattheproliferationof drugs poses the serious risk ofescalatingunlawfulcultivation,manufacture,and distribution of these substances. Though several legislative, administrative, and preventive measures were implementedincludingthepenalprovisionsunderthe NDPS Act, these efforts were found to be insufficient in completely curbing the menaceoftransittrafficking.Itwas,inthesaidcircumstances,thataspecificlaw was enacted providing for preventive detention as a more effective means of incapacitating habitual offenders and drug traffickers. 7. Under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, authority concerned, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person, including a foreigner, that, with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,itisnecessarysotodo,makeanorderdirectingthatsuchpersonbe detained. The order of detention reveals that the authority was objectively and subjectively satisfied, owing to the involvement of the detenu in three crimes relating to possession of Ganja of intermediatequantitythatanorderunderthe Actwasrequiredtobeissued.Insofarasthebailconditionsareconcerned,itcan be seen that authorities took note of the fact that even while granting bail in 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 7 Crime No.57 of 2019 of the Shornur Railway Police Station, a condition was imposed that the detenu shall not involve himself in any crimes. However, violating the said conditions, the detenu has got himself involved in two more crimes.Ithasbeenmentionedintheorderthat"thedetenuhasblatantlyviolated the stringent conditions imposed in the earlier cases". The detaining authority hasalsorecordedthatthedetenuisarepeatoffenderwhogivesscantrespectto the bail conditions and is likely to exploit any leniency given to him. 8. It is common knowledge that recourse to preventive detention can be taken by the executive merely on suspicion and as a precaution to prevent activities by the person sought to be detained, prejudicial to certain specified objectstraceableinavalidlyenactedlaw.Sinceanorderofpreventivedetention has the effect of invading one's personal liberty merely on suspicion and is not viewed as punitive, and the facts on which the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based for ordering preventive detention is not justiciable, meaning thereby that it is not open to the Constitutional Courts to enquire whether the detaining authority has erroneously or correctly reached a satisfaction on every question of fact and/or has passed an order of detention which is not justified on facts, resulting in narrowing downofthejurisdictionto grant relief,itisonlyjustandproperthatsuchdrasticpowerisnotonlyinvoked in appropriate cases but is also exercised responsibly, rationally and reasonably. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is the foundation for the 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 8 exercise of the power of detention. The Court cannot beinvitedtoconsiderthe propriety or sufficiency ofthegroundsonwhichthesatisfactionofthedetaining authority is based. The Court cannot,uponreviewingthegrounds,substituteits own opinion for that of the authority. The exercise of the power ofdetentionis not based on an objective determination of the necessity of detention for a specified purpose butratheronthesubjectiveopinionofthedetainingauthority. If the detaining authority forms a subjective opinion regarding the necessity of detention for a specified purpose, the condition for exercising the power of detentionisfulfilled.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatthesubjectivesatisfaction of the detaining authority is wholly immune from judicial review. Courts have carvedoutalimitedareawithinwhichthevalidityofsubjectivesatisfactioncanbe subjected to judicial scrutiny. The basic principle is that since subjective satisfaction is a condition precedent for the exercise of the power conferred on the executive, the Court can always examine whether the requisite satisfaction was genuinely arrived at by the authority. 9. ItisalsosettledthatthisCourtdoesnotsitinappealinproceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over the decisions taken by the detaining authority on the basis of the materials placed before the detaining authorityastowhetherpreventivedetentionisnecessaryorwarranted.Theshort area of jurisdiction is to ascertain whether subjective satisfaction is entertained properly on the basis of materials placed before the detaining authority. If the 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 9 entertainment of the latter subjective satisfaction is vitiated by mala fidesorby total absence of materials or by reference to and reliance on materials which cannot legally be taken note of, certainlythepowersofjudicialreviewvestedin thisCourtcanbeinvokedandtheorderofdetentiononthebasisofsuchalleged subjective satisfactioncanbesetaside.But,certainly,iftherearematerials,itis notopentothisCourttositinappealoverthesubjectivesatisfactionentertained by the detaining authority. 10. On a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that allthenecessary requirements before passing an order under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act have beenscrupulouslycompliedwithinthiscase.Thecompetentauthoritypassedthe detention order after thoroughly verifying all the materials placed by the sponsoring authority and after arriving at the requisite objective, as well as subjective satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed is vitiated in any manner. Havingconsideredtheentirefacts,weareoftheviewthatthedetenuhas not made out any case for interference. This Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE d/- S K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE PS/APM25/07/25 2025:KER:54777 WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025 10 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 740/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 RUE T COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 22.11.2024 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO INITIATE ACTION UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1988 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO. 2 Exhibit P2 RUE T COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 Exhibit P3 RUE T COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ASG.O (RT)NO. 1761/2025/HOME DATED 28.05.2025