Kerala High Court
Shakeela A.P vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:65944
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. 1086 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHAKEELA A.P
AGED 30 YEARS
WIFE OF. NAMSHEED CHENIKKANDIYIL HOUSE, CHEKKIAD
(PO), PARAKADAV, KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN - 673509
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.BINU
SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CHIEF
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEADQURTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695010
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOZHIKODE RURAL, PAVAMANI ROAD, THAZHEKKODE,
KOZHIKODE (DIST), PIN - 673001
4 SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARED ON 25.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:65944
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 14.03.2025 passed against one Namsheed ('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 none other
than the wife of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the
Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the
Government vide order dated 30.05.2025, 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
District Police Chief, Kozhikode Rural, the 3rd respondent, on
21.12.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu
under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional
authority, the 1st respondent. Altogether, four cases in which the
detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional
authority for passing the order of detention.
3. Out of the four cases considered by the jurisdictional
authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:65944
activity is Crime No.21/2025 of Nadapuram Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(a), 20(b)(ii)A,
and 29 of the NDPS Act. The allegation in the said case is that on
07.01.2025, the detenu was found travelling in a car possessing
0.28 gm of MDMA and 1.70 gms of ganja in contravention of the
provisions contained under the NDPS Act.
4. We heard Sri. P.S.Binu, 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 counsel, in the grounds of
detention prepared by the District Police Chief, Kozhikode Rural, it
is mentioned that the last prejudicial activity is crime No.331/2024
of Valayam Police Station. However, in that impugned order, what
is stated is that the last prejudicial activity is crime No.21/2025 of
Nadapuram Police Station. According to the counsel, the said
disparity regarding the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity itself shows non-application of mind on the part
of the jurisdictional authority. The learned counsel further
submitted that although the detenu was not accustomed to the
English language, the grounds of detention prepared in English
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:65944
was served on the detenu and hence, he was incapacitated from
filing an effective representation before the Government as well as
the Advisory Board. The learned counsel further submitted that the
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu in the
order granting bail to him was not considered by the jurisdictional
authority while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel
further urged that the bail conditions clamped on the detenu were
sufficient to deter him from being involved in criminal activities
and therefore, an order of preventive detention was not at all
necessary. On these premises, it was contended that Ext.P1 order
is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that Ext.P1 order was passed on proper application of mind and
after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, there is no
disparity in the order with respect to the case registered in
connection with the last prejudicial activity. The Government
Pleader pointed out that though the proposal was submitted
immediately after the involvement of the detenu in crime
No.331/2024, subsequently the detenu got involved in crime
No.21/2025 of Nadapuram Police Station. According to the
Government Pleader, after the involvement in crime No.21/2025,
the Sponsoring authority submitted an additional report informing
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:65944
the detaining authority about the same and it was after considering
the materials in both the said cases, Ext.P1 order of detention was
passed. The Government Pleader further submitted that the
grounds of detention prepared in Malayalam were duly served on
the detenu, and his contention that only the grounds of detention
prepared in English language were served on him is absolutely
false. Moreover, it was urged that the sufficiency of bail conditions
imposed on the detenu while granting bail to him in crime
No.331/2024 of Valayam Police Station was duly considered by the
jurisdictional authority, and it was after being satisfied that the
said conditions are not sufficient to deter the detenu from involving
in further criminal activities the impugned order of detention was
passed.
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. One of the contentions taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that there is disparity with respect to
the number of cases registered in connection with the last
prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, in the grounds of
detention prepared by District Police Chief, Kozhikode Rural, it is
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:65944
mentioned that the last prejudicial activity is crime No.331/2024
dated 10.08.2024 of Valayam Police Station. However, in that
impugned order, what is stated is that the last prejudicial activity is
crime No.21/2025 of Nadapuram Police Station. According to the
counsel, the said disparity regarding the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity itself shows non-application
of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority.
8. While considering the above contention, it is to be
noted that it is after the involvement of the detenu in crime
No.331/2024 of Valayam Police Station, the proposal for initiation
of proceedings under PITNDPS Act was mooted. However, while
the said proceedings were pending, the detenu got involved in
another criminal activity, and a case was registered as crime
No.21/2025. The incident in the said case occurred on 07.01.2025,
and in the said case, the allegation was that the detenu was found
in possession of a small quantity of Ganja and MDMA. The detenu
was arrested in the said case on 07.01.2025 itself and released on
bail in the said case on 08.01.2025 as the offence alleged against
him in that case was bailable in nature.
9. In the impugned order, all these facts are specifically
stated, and it is mentioned that the case registered against the
petitioner with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:65944
No.21/2025 of Nadapuram Police Station. There is no mistake in it.
However, in the grounds of arrest prepared by the District Police
Chief, Kozhikode Rural, it is mentioned that the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is
crime No.331/2024 of Valayam Police Station. We have already
stated that it was immediately after the registration of the said
case the proposal for proceedings under PITNDPS Act was mooted.
However, after the forwarding of the proposal, the detenu got
involved in crime No.21/2025 of Nadapuram Police Station.
Therefore, the statement in the grounds of detention prepared by
the District Police Chief that the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.331/2024 of Valayam Police Station cannot be treated as a
mistake as the said case was the last prejudicial activity when the
proposal was forwarded. Virtually, it cannot be said that there is
any disparity with respect to the case registered in connection with
the last prejudicial activity.
10. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that although the detenu was not accustomed to the
English language, the grounds of detention prepared in English
was served on the detenu and hence, he was incapacitated from
filing an effective representation before the Government as well as
the Advisory Board. However, the learned Government Pleader
resisted the said contention by contending that the grounds of
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:65944
detention prepared by the jurisdictional authority in Malayalam
were duly served on the detenu. In order to substantiate the same
contention, he produced the original records of the case for
verification before us. On going through the records made
available by the Government Pleader, we are satisfied that the
grounds of detention prepared in Malayalam was duly served on
the detenu. In the said document, the signature of the detenu finds
a place in acknowledgement of the receipt of the same. Likewise,
from the records it is evident that the Malayalam translation of the
grounds of detention prepared by the sponsoring authority was
also duly served on the detenu. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner that he was handicapped in filing an effective
representation before the Advisory Board as well as the before the
Government will not be sustained.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that the
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu in the
order granting bail to the detenu in crime No.331/2024 of Valayam
Police Station was not considered by the jurisdictional authority
while passing the impugned order. 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 to pass an order of detention against a person who is
already on bail. However, when an order of detention is passed
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:65944
against a person who is on bail, it is imperative 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 prevent the detenu from being involved in
criminal activities. 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 crime No.331/2024
of Valayam Police Station is specifically adverted to. It is true that
the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail are not
extracted in the impugned order. However, there is no
requirement of law that the bail condition should be extracted in
the impugned order but what is required is the consideration of the
sufficiency of bail conditions by the jurisdictional authority to
arrive at the subjective satisfaction necessary for passing an order
of detention against a person who is already on bail.
12. Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the
impugned order, it can be seen that in the impugned order, it is
stated that the detenu has blatantly violated the bail conditions in
earlier cases and has been continuously involved in narcotic
crimes. It is further mentioned that the sponsoring authority has
pointed out that the accused is a habitual offender who gives scant
respect to the bail conditions and is likely to exploit any leniency
given to him by the justice system. Likewise, in the grounds of
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:65944
detention, which is a part of the detention order, it is stated that
the antecedents of the detenu show that there is every possibility
that the detenu would violate the bail conditions and again indulge
in drug peddling activities.
13. A holistic reading of the impugned order suggests that
the jurisdictional authority passed the order after being satisfied
that the bail conditions imposed on the detenu are not sufficient to
deter him from being involved in criminal activities further.
Likewise, the actions under ordinary criminal law will not suffice to
prevent his propensity to engage in criminal activities. 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 detenu has
not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition
fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1086 of 2025 :: 11 ::
2025:KER:65944
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1086/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION
NO HOME-SSC1/4/2025-HOME DATED
14.3.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION
IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Exhibit P4 REPORT OF SCREENING
Exhibit P5 FORWARDING LETTER DATED 21.12.2024
ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 REPORT DATED 25.1.2025 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit 6(a) REPORT DATED 20.2.2025 ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 REPORT DATED 13.1.2025 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 REPORT DATED 28.1.2025 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit 9 REPORT DATED 24.2.2025 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit 10 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
G.O.(RT) NO 1775/2025/HOME DATED
30.5.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
