Kerala High Court
Anitha vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:65983
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. 980 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANITHA
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O VINOD ANTONY, ANITHA BHAVAN, MCRA B 13,
MULLANCHANI, KODUNGANOOR, VATTIYOORKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.VINOD
SHRI.SUHAIL M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME(SSA) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L&O)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
WP(Crl.) No.980/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:65983
PIN - 695001
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695010
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.980/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:65983
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner herein is the mother of one Vineesh, ('detenu' for
the sake of brevity), and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed
against Ext.P5 order of detention dated 25.06.2025 passed by the 1st
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS Act for
brevity).
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, on
01.04.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu
under the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 1st
respondent. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved
have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the
order of detention. Out of the three cases considered, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.386/2025 of Museum Police Station, alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii) B and 29 of NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. V.A. Vinod, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas , the learned Government Pleader.
WP(Crl.) No.980/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:65983
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P5 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. 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. Relying on the
above-said contentions, the learned counsel submitted that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext. P5 order of detention 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.
WP(Crl.) No.980/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:65983
6. 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, three cases in which the detenu got involved were considered
by the detaining authority for passing the detention order.
7. 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
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
WP(Crl.) No.980/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:65983
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.
8. Keeping in mind the above, while reverting to the facts in
the case at hand, it can be seen that the petitioner was arrested in
connection with the last prejudicial activity on 24.02.2025. He was
released on bail in the said case on 20.05.2025. Therefore, it is
demonstrably clear that it was while the petitioner was on bail, the
impugned order of detention was passed. Anyhow, it is apparent 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. 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 by considering his criminal
antecedents, it is evident that the bail conditions are not sufficient to
curb his narcotic criminal activities. 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
WP(Crl.) No.980/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:65983
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.
Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.980/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:65983
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 980/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO 386/2025 OF MUSEUM
POLICE STATION DATED 25.02.2025
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO 190/2025 OF
VATTIYUKAVU POLICE STATION DATED
25.02.2025
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL M.P NO
1812/2025 DATED 16.05.2025 OF HON'BLE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-V,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL M.P NO
1744/2025 DATED 20.05.2025 OF HON'BLE
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.06.2025
BEARING NO. HOME-SSC1/62/2025-HOME
PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
