[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nayana Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 4 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:93937
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 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1625 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
NAYANA SURESH
AGED 26 YEARS
KUNNEL HOUSE, THATTARATHATTA, KARIMKUNNAM VIILAGE,
THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685586
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 - 682031
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA(HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, CIVIL
STATION, IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685603
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
BY SRI.K.A.ANAS - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1625 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:93937
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
11.02.2025 passed against one Shins Augustine, S/o. Augustine (herein
after referred to as 'detenu'), 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 the wife of the
detenu. The detention order, which is under challenge in this petition,
was confirmed by the Government vide order dated 29.04.2025, 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 on 07.11.2024, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Idukki, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act
before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, ten
cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the
jurisdictional authority while passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the
said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is crime No.46/2024 of the Excise Range Office, Thodupuzha,
alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B
of the NDPS Act.
WP(Crl.) No.1625 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:93937
3. We have heard Smt.Sai Pooja, 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
Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. It was further submitted that the copies of some of
the relied upon documents served on the detenu are illegible and,
hence, the detenu was incapacitated from filing an effective
representation before the Advisory Board. According to the learned
counsel, the non-service of readable copies of all the relied-upon
documents itself is a ground that will vitiate the impugned order. On
these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 detention order is liable to be
set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that
the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order after being fully
satisfied that such an order is the only remedy to restrain the detenu
from engaging in further criminal activities. According to the learned
Government Pleader, the copies of all the relied-upon documents were
duly served on the detenu and the contention of the petitioner that he
was incapacitated from filing an effective representation before the
Advisory Board is absolutely baseless. The learned Government
Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and
WP(Crl.) No.1625 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:93937
hence, warrants no interference.
6. As revealed from the records, it was after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in drug peddling activities that the
sponsoring authority mooted the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under the PITNDPS Act against the detenu. Altogether, ten cases in
which the detenu was involved have formed the basis for passing
Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.46/2024 of Excise
Range Office, Thodupuzha, alleging commission of an offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act.
7. In the above-said case, the detenu, who is arrayed as the
sole accused, was caught red-handed with the contraband on
08.10.2024. Later it was on 07.01.2025, he was released on bail. It was
on 07.11.2024, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was
mooted. A perusal of the records further reveals that after the receipt
of the proposal, the Government had placed the same before the
screening committee for its opinion. The screening committee, after
considering the proposal, filed a report expressing its opinion that it is
a fit case to preventively detain the detenu. The said report was
received by the Government on 17.01.2025. It was on 11.02.2025, the
detention order was passed. The sequence of the events narrated
above clearly reveals that there is no unreasonable delay either in
WP(Crl.) No.1625 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:93937
mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order.
8. As already stated, Ext.P1 detention order was passed while
the detenu was on bail in the case registered against him with respect
to the last prejudicial activity. 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.
Likewise, in the impugned order, it is stated that the criminal
antecedents of the detenu show that he may likely to violate those
conditions and there is a high propensity that the detenu will indulge in
drug peddling activities in the future. 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 is
evident that the jurisdictional authority had duly considered the
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of
granting bail to him, and that it was after being satisfied that those
conditions are insufficient to deter the detenu from being involved in
criminal activities, that the Ext.P1 order was passed.
9. As already mentioned, one of the main contentions taken by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that some of the copies of the
relied-upon documents served on the detenu are not legible and hence
he was handicapped from filing an effective representation before the
WP(Crl.) No.1625 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:93937
Government. In order to verify the veracity of the said contention, we
have examined the case file made available to us by the learned
Government Pleader. On verification, we are convinced that the copies
of several relied-upon documents, which find a place in the case file,
are not readable and illegible. The obligation of the detaining authority
to furnish legible copies of relied-upon documents to the detenu is not
a mere formality. Only when the said procedure is scrupulously
complied with, the detenu can file an effective representation before
the Advisory Board and the Government. The right of the detenu to file
an effective representation before the Government as well as the
Advisory Board is a constitutional right under Article 22(5) and also a
statutory right. Therefore, it is the duty of the detaining authority to
ensure that the copies of the impugned order, as well as the relevant
documents which are furnished to the detenu at the time of effecting
his arrest, are legible so as to enable him to approach the Advisory
Board as well as the Government, to make an effective representation.
10. In the case at hand, it is established that some of the
copies of the relied-upon documents supplied to the detenu were not
legible, making him incapacitated to file an effective representation.
The said serious lapse is a ground to interfere with the impugned
order. An order of detention, under the PITNDPS Act, has wide
ramifications as far as the personal as well as the fundamental rights of
an individual are concerned. Therefore, the detaining authority should
have acted with much alacrity in ensuring that all the procedural
WP(Crl.) No.1625 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:93937
formalities were adhered to.
11. 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. Shins Augustine 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.1625 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:93937
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1625 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED
11.02.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER
(G.O (RT) NO.1408/2025/HOME) DATED
29.04.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NOS.217, 218,
295, 296 , 297 & 298 IN THE FILE HANDED
OVER TO THE DETENUE
