Kerala High Court
Fousiya Sajid vs State Of Kerala on 21 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:63925
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. 1024 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
FOUSIYA SAJID, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. SAJID V.A., 12/1008, B3,
ANDI ACHARI ROAD, MATTANCHERRY PO,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682002
BY ADVS.
SHRI. JEFRIN JOSE
SRI.S.SURESH BABU
SMT.JASMINE LIGY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
ROOM NO. 124, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - ., PIN - 110001
3 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - ., PIN - 695001
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, POLICE
WP(Crl.) No.1024/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:63925
COMMISSIONERATE OF KOCHI, REVENUE TOWER, MARINE
DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
GP; K.A.ANAS
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.1024/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:63925
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of Farhan V. S., ('detenu' for the sake
of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against
Ext.P1 order of detention dated 05.04.2025 passed by the 3rd
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 ('PITNDPS Act'
for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the
said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated
12.06.2025, 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
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, the 4th respondent, on
15.01.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under
Section 3(1) PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 3rd
respondent. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the detaining authority for passing the
impugned order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1125/2024 of
Thopumpadi Police station, registered alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and the
detenu was arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case.
WP(Crl.) No.1024/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:63925
3. We heard Sri.Jefrin Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, and Sri. K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. The learned counsel urged that the jurisdictional
authority passed the impugned order of detention without taking note of
the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity and the conditions imposed on him
at the time of granting bail itself were sufficient to deter the detenu
from being involved in further criminal activities. According to the
learned counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly
considered by the jurisdictional authority, and passed the impugned
order in a casual manner. On these premises, it was argued that the
impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the
jurisdictional authority passed Ext. P1 order after taking note of the fact
that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial
activity and after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while
granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from
involving in criminal activities. Similarly, the learned Government
Pleader submitted that the order of detention was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and after
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and
WP(Crl.) No.1024/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:63925
hence, warrants no interference.
6. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival
contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident from
the records, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the
last prejudicial activity is crime No.1125/2024 of Thopumpadi Police
station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under
Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act and the detenu was arrayed as the
2nd accused in the said case. The allegation in the said case is that on
28.10.2024, the 1st and 2nd accused were found possessing 13.17 gm of
MDMA for the purpose of sale in a house belonging to the 1st accused at
Thopumpadi in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. As
evident from the records, in the investigation conducted subsequently, it
was revealed that the contraband seized in this case is not MDMA but
Methamphetamine. The detenu was arrested in the said case on
28.10.2024, on the date of detection itself. Subsequently, he was
released on bail in the said case on 29.01.2025. The proposal for
initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was mooted on
15.01.2025 while the detenu was under judicial custody. However, it
was on 05.04.2025, while the petitioner was on bail in the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, that the impugned
order of detention was passed.
7. In the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was
released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the
WP(Crl.) No.1024/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:63925
last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to. However, it is true
that the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail are not
extracted in the impugned order. But there is no requirement of law
that the bail conditions shall be extracted in the order of detention. But
what is required is that the jurisdictional authority should consider the
sufficiency of bail conditions imposed in the bail order. In the impugned
order, it is clearly mentioned that the detenu has blatantly violated the
stringent bail conditions imposed by the court in the previous case
registered against him and involved in the last prejudicial activity.
Similarly, it is mentioned that there is a high propensity that the detenu
will indulge in drug peddling activities in the future, as he is a habitual
offender and has a history of violating bail conditions. A holistic reading
of the impugned order further reveals that the act of the detenu
violating the bail conditions and being involved in criminal activities is
one of the materials which the jurisdictional authority relied on to enter
into a subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the jurisdictional authority did not consider the
sufficiency of the bail condition imposed on the detenu at the time of
granting bail to him. The impugned order reveals that the antecedents
of the detenu, which included criminal activities and the undermining of
earlier bail orders, persuaded the detaining authority to arrive at a
subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of passing the order.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu was not
considered by the detaining authority will fail.
WP(Crl.) No.1024/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:63925
8. From a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that all the
necessary procedural requirements before and after passing an order
under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act have been scrupulously complied
with in this case. We are further satisfied that the competent authority
passed the 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 under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act is vitiated
in any manner.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner has
not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1024/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:63925
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1024/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
HOME/SSC2/44/2025-HOME DATED 5/4/2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
23/4/2025 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT
FOR SC/ST (POA) AND NDPS ACT CASES,
MANJERI IN CRIMINAL M.P. NO. 21/2024
IN S.C. NO. 539/2023 IN CRIME NO.
777/2022 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.
GO(RT) NO. 1951/2025/HOME DATED
12/6/2025
