[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Zuhara Abba vs State Of Kerala on 6 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:94573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1657 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ZUHARA ABBA
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O ABBAS MASTHIKKUND HOUSE, POVVAL MASTHIKKUND
P.O MULIYAR, KASARGOD, KERALA PIN, PIN - 671542
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
SHRI.MIDHUN MOHAN
SHRI.IRSHAD V.P.
SHRI.ARTHUR B. GEORGE
SHRI.FRANCIS ASSISI
SHRI.ABDUL SAMAD P.B.
SHRI.E.B.THAJUDDEEN
SHRI.MOHAMMED MUBARAK A.I.
SHRI.MUHAMMED RISWAN K.A.
SHRI.RAMSHAD K.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN-695001, PIN - 682031
2 THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ROOM NO. 124,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
PARAKKATTA (PARAKATTA), VIDYANAGAR-ULIYATHADKA
ROAD, KUDLU, KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671124
4 THE SUPERINDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695012
W.P(Crl). No.1657 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:94573
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 06.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.1657 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:94573
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner herein is the mother of one Muhammed Sahad
('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition
is directed against Ext.P2 order of detention dated 29.08.2025, passed
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 17.11.2025, 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 23.05.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the
jurisdictional authority. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got
involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for
passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.25/2025 of
Adhur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable
under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri.Mohammed Aslam P.A, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
W.P(Crl). No.1657 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:94573
4. 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, the jurisdictional
authority passed the impugned order 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 her 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. It is further contended that there is an
unreasonable delay in motting the proposal and in passing the
detention order after the date of commission of the last prejudicial
activity, and the said inordinate delay will certainly snap the livelink
between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On
these premises, 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 the 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. According to the learned
Government Pleader, there occurred no unreasonable delay either in
W.P(Crl). No.1657 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:94573
mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order. The learned
Government Pleader submitted that after the commission of the last
prejudicial activity, the detenu was in jail in connection with the said
case for a considerable period. Therefore, the short delay that occurred
in mooting the proposal is only liable to be discarded, particularly since
the detenu was in jail and there was no possibility of his engaging in
criminal activities while under custody. The learned Government
Pleader further urged that the order of detention was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and
hence, warrants no interference.
6. The records reveal that the detention order was passed by
the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement
of the detenu in narcotic peddling activities. As already stated, three
cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing
Ext.P2 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.25/2025 of Adhur
Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under
Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
7. The allegation in the said case is that on 13.01.2025, the
detenu, along with the other co-accused in this case, were found
possessing and transporting 99.54 gms of Methamphetamine for the
purpose of sale in a car bearing Registration No.KL 14 AD 6009. The
W.P(Crl). No.1657 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:94573
detenu along with other co-accused, were arrested in this case on
13.01.2025 itself. As evident from the records, he was granted bail in
the said case on 25.07.2025. It was on 23.05.2025, while the detenu
was under judicial custody, the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under the PITNDPS Act was forwarded by the sponsoring authority.
Subsequently, on 29.08.2025, the detention order was passed.
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
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 engaging in
criminal activities, an order of preventive detention is neither
W.P(Crl). No.1657 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:94573
necessitated nor legally permissible. Therefore, when a person is
already on bail, 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 cases registered against him is
specifically adverted to. Moreover, in the impugned order, the
sufficiency of the bail conditions is also seen properly considered by the
jurisdictional authority. In the impugned order, it is specifically
mentioned that from the past criminal activities, it is evident that the
detenu is likely to violate those bail conditions, and there is a high
propensity that he will indulge in drug peddling activities in the future.
Similarly, in Ext.P2 order, it is further stated that the present bail
conditions are not seen as sufficient to curb the criminal activity of the
detenu since he has violated similar conditions in the past. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above
regard will fail.
10. Now, coming to the contention raised by the petitioner
regarding the delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the
detention order, it is first to be noted that, as already stated, the detenu
was arrested in connection with the last prejudicial activity on
13.01.2025, the very date on which the crime occurred. As evident from
the records, the sponsoring authority initiated the proposal for action
W.P(Crl). No.1657 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:94573
under the PITNDPS Act only on 23.05.2025. Thereafter, the detention
order was passed on 29.08.2025. Evidently, the forwarding of the
proposal occurred while the detenu was in judicial custody. Since the
detenu was in jail, there was no basis for any apprehension of an
imminent repetition of criminal activities during the intervening period.
Therefore, the minimum delay that occurred in initiating the proposal
and in issuing the detention order is liable to be disregarded, and it
cannot be said that such delay snapped the live link between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner 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
vdv
W.P(Crl). No.1657 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:94573
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1657 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O (RT) NO 3959
OF 2025 OF HOME (SCC) DEPARTMENT DATED
17-11-2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
SSC2/124/2025/HOME DATED 29-08-2025
ISSUED BY THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
