Kerala High Court
Rajeev.A vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:65969
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 3RD BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 990 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
RAJEEV.A., AGED 34 YEARS
S/O RAMAKRISHNAN.A, ANAKKUZHY HOUSE,
CHETHALLUR P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678583
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SRI.M.MAHIN HAMZA
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
(HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:65969
PALAKKAD, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, YAKKARA
ROAD, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, PALAKKAD,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678014
4 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT,, PIN - 673001
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
G.P; K.A.ANAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:65969
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner herein is the cousin brother of one Baburaj, S/o.
Balakrishnan ('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and his challenge in this
Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P2 order of detention dated
25.04.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (PITNDPS Act for brevity). The said order stands
confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 19.07.2025, after
obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board, 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
District Police Chief, Palakkad, on 24.01.2025, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the
jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent.
3. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the
order of detention. Out of the four cases considered, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1270/2024 of Ottappalam Police Station, alleging the commission
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:65969
of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) C and 29 of NDPS Act.
4. We heard Smt. Saipooja, 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 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 in passing the
order of detention, and hence, the live link between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. The
learned counsel further 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 detenue 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, the learned counsel
submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that there is no delay in passing Ext.P2 detention order. He pointed
out that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under PITNDPS Act
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:65969
was mooted while the detenu was under judicial custody, and without
much delay from the date of the detenu's release from jail in
connection with the last prejudicial activity, the order of detention was
passed. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader urged that the
petitioner could not be heard to say that the live link between the last
prejudicial activity and the order of detention was snapped. The
learned Government pleader further submitted that the jurisdictional
authority passed Ext. P2 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 being
involved in criminal activities. The learned Government Pleader
further urged that the order of detention was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and after
arriving on the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction,
and hence, warrants no interference.
7. The records reveal that the impugned order of detention
was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities. As already
stated, four cases in which the detenu was involved were considered
by the detaining authority for passing the detention order.
8. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that it was without taking note of the fact that the
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:65969
detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity and without considering the sufficiency of the
bail conditions imposed by the court at the time of granting bail, the
jurisdictional authority passed the the impugned order of detention.
While considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in
the above regard, it is to be noted that there is no law that precludes
the jurisdictional authority from passing an order of detention against
a person who is already on bail. However, when an order of detention
is passed against a person who is on bail, it is incumbent upon the
authority to take note of the said fact and to consider whether the bail
conditions imposed on such a person while granting bail by the court
are sufficient to restrain him from being involved in criminal activities.
Undisputedly, an order of detention is a drastic measure against a
person. Therefore, when there are other effective remedies available
under the ordinary criminal law to deter a person from involving in
criminal activities, an order of preventive detention is neither
necessitated nor legally permissible. Therefore, when a person is
already under judicial custody, the compelling circumstances that
necessitated passing an order of detention should be reflected in the
order itself.
9. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the case at
hand, it can be seen that in the impugned order itself, the fact that the
detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to.
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:65969
Moreover, in the impugned order, the sufficiency of the bail conditions
is also seen as properly considered by the jurisdictional authority. In
the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned that from his past
criminal activities and blatant disregard for the preventive measures
and bail orders, the detenu is likely to violate the bail condition, and
there is a high propensity that he will indulge in drug peddling
activities again. 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. The same is seen done by the jurisdictional authority
while passing the order, and the authority entered into a conclusion
that those conditions are not sufficient to deter the detenu from
repeating criminal activities. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner in the above regard will fail.
10. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal
as well as in passing the impugned order of detention. While
considering the said contention, it could not be ignored that an order
under PITNDPS Act is having 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
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:65969
objective and subjective satisfaction. Furthermore, there exists no
inflexible rule requiring a detention order to be passed within a
specified time frame following the last prejudicial activity. 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 convincing or plausible explanation is offered for
the delay.
11. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the facts in
the present case, it can be seen that, as already noted, the last
prejudicial activity was committed by the detenu on 31.10.2024. The
detenu who was arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case was
arrested on the same day, and he was released on bail only on
11.04.2025. The proposal for the initiation of proceedings under
PITNDPS Act was mooted by the District Police Chief, Palakkad, on
24.01.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody. It is true
that there is a delay of around two months in mooting the proposal.
However, it cannot be ignored that the detenu was under judicial
custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity and it was
while he was under judicial custody that the proposal was forwarded.
As the detenu was under judicial custody, there was no basis for any
apprehension regarding imminent involvement of the detenu in
criminal activities. Therefore, the short delay occurred in mooting the
proposal is of little consequence, and the same is only liable to be
discarded. The sequence of the events narrated in the impugned
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:65969
order further reveals that the short delay occurred in passing the
order was due to administrative reasons. Therefore, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner, sticking to the delay, is only
liable to be discarded.
Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.990/2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:65969
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 990/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL/REPORT
DATED 22.01.2025 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
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
DATED 25.04.2025 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST INTIMATION
DATED 28.04.2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF ARREST
DATED 28.04.2025 ISSUED TO THE
RELATIVE OF THE DETENU
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF ARREST
ISSUED TO THE DETENU DATED NIL
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11.04.2025 IN CRL.M.C. NO.2052/2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS COURT; PALAKKAD
