Kerala High Court
Balkees Banu M. K vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:63584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 929 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BALKEES BANU M. K.
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O BASHEER P., PUTHIYAKALATHI HOUSE, AYIKKARAPPADI,
CHELEMRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 673637
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.DEVESH
SRI.M.ANUROOP
SHRI.MURSHID ALI M.
SMT.JYOTHIS MARY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
CIVIL STATION, MADATHUMPADI, KALPETTA, WAYANAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 673122
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.929 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:63584
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of one Muhammad Shameem P.,
('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ
Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated
07.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 ('PITNDPS Act' for brevity).
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Wayanad, the 3rd respondent, on 14.03.2025,
seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section
3(1) PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd
respondent. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu was involved
have been considered by the detaining authority for passing the
impugned order of detention.
3. The last case registered against the detenu and considered
by the detaining authority for arriving at the requisite objective and
subjective satisfaction for passing the present detention order is
crime No.1060/2024 of Sultan Bathery Police Station, registered
alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c)
and 29 of the NDPS Act. In the said case, the detenu was arrayed as
the second accused.
WP(Crl.) No.929 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:63584
4. We heard Sri.M.Devesh, 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.P2 order was passed without proper application of mind and
without adhering to the procedural formalities mentioned in the
PITNDPS Act. The learned counsel urged that there is an inordinate
delay in mooting the proposal and in passing the impugned order
after the date of the last prejudicial activity. According to the
counsel, the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the
last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention, and hence, the
learned counsel urged for an order setting aside Ext.P2 order.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the order of detention was passed after complying with all the
necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind.
According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no inordinate
delay either in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings or
in passing the order of detention. Moreover, he would submit that
some minimal delay is inevitable as the authority mooting the
proposal requires some time to collect the details of the cases in
which the detenu is involved and for verification of records.
According to the learned Government Pleader, the detaining
authority passed the order after arriving at the required objective as
WP(Crl.) No.929 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:63584
well as subjective satisfaction, and hence no interference is
warranted in the impugned order.
7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused
the records.
8. The records reveal that it was after considering the
involvement of the detenu in two cases registered under the NDPS
Act, the District Police Chief, Wayanad, had forwarded the proposal
for initiation of proceedings, under the PITNDPS Act, to the
jurisdictional authority. The case registered against the detenu with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No. 1060/2024 of
Sultan Bathery Police Station, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The
allegation in the said case is that the accused nos. 1 to 3 were found
possessing and transporting 54.09 gms of MDMA in a car for the
purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.
The detenu who is arrayed as the 3rd accused in the said case was
arrested on 07.12.2024 itself. He was released on bail on
26.04.2025. It was on 14.03.2025, while the detenu was in judicial
custody in the said case, that the proposal for action under
PITNDPS was mooted by the District Police Chief, Wayanad. The
records reveal that there is no inordinate delay in forwarding the
said proposal, as the same was made while the detenu was under
judicial custody. However, after the proposal, the order of detention
WP(Crl.) No.929 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:63584
was passed only on 07.07.2025. Virtually, there is a delay of seven
months in passing the detention order from the date of the last
prejudicial activity.
9. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that after
receipt of the proposal dated 14.03.2025, the same was placed by
the Government before the screening committee under the
chairmanship of the Law Secretary only on 05.05.2025. However, in
the order, no explanation is seen offered for the delay occurred in
placing the same before the screening committee. Similarly, as
evident from the impugned order, the report of the screening
committee was sent to the screening committee members and the
sponsoring authority concerned for getting their authentication.
Subsequently, the said authentication was received by the
Government on 12.06.2025. After getting the said authentication
also, there occurred a delay of around one month in passing the
impugned order. No explanation whatsoever is stated in the
impugned order for the said delay. If the detaining authority was
having bona fide apprehension regarding the repetition of the
offence by the detenu, the authority ought to have acted swiftly, and
the order of detention would have been passed without any delay.
Therefore, the delay occurred in passing the impugned order will
definitely snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and
the purpose of detention.
WP(Crl.) No.929 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:63584
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central
Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the
detenu, Sri.Muhammad Shameem 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, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram,
forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.929 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:63584
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 929/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED
14.03.2025 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
FOR INITIATING ACTION AGAINST THE DETENU
UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE PITNDPS ACT,
1988 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
(NO. SSC2/97/2025-HOME) DATED 07.07.2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT
OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS ACT CASES/
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II KALPETTA,
WAYANAD, DATED 26.04.2025
