[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Almy Antony vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1687 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
ALMY ANTONY
AGED 32 YEARS
NIKARTHIL HOUSE, MATSYAPURI P.O., KANAMBATHUR
DESAM, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682029
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
RESPONDENT/S:
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
THRISSUR CITY, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
PATTALAM ROAD, IN FRONT OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION,
SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680001
WP(Crl.) No.1687/2025 ::2:: 2025:KER:97034
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
BY
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS - PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 16.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1687/2025 ::3:: 2025:KER:97034
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner herein is the wife of one Vinu @ Antony
('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ
Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated
02.09.2025, 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 19.11.2025, 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 03.06.2025, a
proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Thrissur City,
seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the
PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd
respondent. Altogether, eight cases in which the detenu got
involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for
passing the order of detention. Out of the said cases considered, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.222/2025 of Medical College Police Station, Thrissur City
alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 22(b)
of the NDPS Act.
WP(Crl.) No.1687/2025 ::4:: 2025:KER:97034
3. We heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, 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 was passed on improper consideration of facts and
without proper application of mind. The learned counsel urged that
there occurred an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as
well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay will
certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and
the purpose of detention. According to the learned counsel, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside on the said sole ground.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the Ext.P1 order was passed upon proper application of mind
and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, there is no
inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the
detention order as claimed in this writ petition. The learned
Government Pleader urged that the impugned order requires no
interference as the same was passed on proper application of mind
and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction.
WP(Crl.) No.1687/2025 ::5:: 2025:KER:97034
6. The records reveal that Ext.P1 order was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement
of the detenu in narcotic drug peddling activities. As already stated,
eight cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for
passing the detention order. The sole 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 detention order,
and the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.
7. While considering the contention of the petitioner
regarding the delay in passing the impugned order, it could not be
ignored that an order under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS has a
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 upon arriving at the requisite objective, as well as subjective
satisfaction. Furthermore, there exists no inflexible rule requiring a
detention order to be issued within a specific time frame following
the last prejudicial act. However, when there is undue 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.
WP(Crl.) No.1687/2025 ::6:: 2025:KER:97034
8. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [(1989) 4 SCC
741], the Apex Court held that the question whether the prejudicial
activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is
proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link
between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is
snapped depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No
hard and fast rule can be precisely formulated that would be
applicable under all circumstances, and no exhaustive guidelines
can be laid down on that behalf. It follows that the test of proximity
is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting the number of
months between the offending acts and the order of detention.
However, when there is an undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activities and the passing of the detention order, the
court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has
satisfactorily explained such a delay and afforded a tenable and
reasonable explanation as to why such a delay has occasioned when
called upon to answer and further the court has to investigate
whether the causal connection has been broken in the
circumstances of each case.
9. Having regard to the principles enumerated in the above
decision, while coming to the facts in the present case, it can be
seen that the incident which led to the registration of the case with
respect to the last prejudicial activity occurred on 12.03.2025, and
WP(Crl.) No.1687/2025 ::7:: 2025:KER:97034
the detenu, who is the sole accused in the said case, was arrested on
the same day. Thereafter, he was released on bail on 27.05.2025. It
was on 03.06.2025, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under the PITNDPS Act was initiated, and finally, the impugned
order of detention was passed on 02.09.2025.
10. The sequence of events narrated above clearly shows
that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal
or in passing the impugned order of detention. Moreover, eight
cases formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order.
Therefore, some minimum time is required to collect the details of
the said cases and for verification of the records. Likewise, while
considering the short delay that occurred in mooting the proposal, it
cannot be ignored that the detenu was arrested in the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity on 12.03.2025,
and he was under judicial custody in the said case till 27.05.2025.
Since the detenu was in jail in the interregnum, there was no
imminent apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal
activities by him. More pertinently, after the release of the detenu
from jail, within seven days, the jurisdictional authority mooted the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act.
Therefore, the short delay in mooting the proposal is only negligible.
WP(Crl.) No.1687/2025 ::8:: 2025:KER:97034
11. As evident from the records, on receipt of the proposal,
the Government examined the same in detail and on 18.07.2025
placed the same before the screening committee constituted under
the Chairmanship of the Law Secretary for opinion. The screening
committee, after carefully examining the matter, opined that this is
a fit case for issuing a detention order under Section 3(1) of the
PITNDPS Act. The report of the screening committee expressing its
opinion was received by the Government on 01.08.2025, and the
impugned order was passed on 02.09.2025. Hence, it is apparent
that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal
or in passing the detention order. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
be heard to say that the live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of detention is snapped.
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
vdv
WP(Crl.) No.1687/2025 ::9:: 2025:KER:97034
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1687 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
HOME-SSC2/128/2025-HOME DATED
02.09.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ILLEGIBLE COPY OF
PAGES NO.233 TO 236, 411 TO 415 AND 431
TO 432 OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY
THE SPONSORING AUTHORITY TO THE DETENU
