[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sreena K.S vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:97402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1740 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SREENA K.S
AGED 23 YEARS
W/O. ARUN KRISHNAN, KOTHANGALMURI, VANIYAMKULAM,
PANAYUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679522
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASADU AHMMED CHULLINTE
SMT.MEHNA IBRAHIM
SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT (SSA), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF/DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695001
4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PALAKKAD
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 679303
6 THE CHAIRMAN
ADVISORY BOARD, PITNDPS, SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682026
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:97402
7 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON AND CORRECTIONAL HOME,
POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS-PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 17.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:97402
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner herein is the wife of one Arun Krishnan
('detenu' for the sake of brevity) and her challenge in this Writ
Petition is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated
27.09.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1988 ('PITNDPS Act' for brevity). The said
detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order
dated 02.12.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained
for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.
2. As evident from the records, it was based on a proposal
dated 10.07.2025, forwarded by the District Police Chief, Palakkad,
that the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent, initiated
proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS
Act. 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 considered, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.697/2025 of Pattambi Police Station, alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. Asadu Ahmmed Chullinte, the learned
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:97402
counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind
and on improper consideration of facts. According to the learned
counsel, the jurisdictional authority passed the detention 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 him at the time of granting bail
itself were sufficient to deter the detenu from being involved in
further criminal activities. The learned counsel urged that the
conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail were
sufficient to prevent him from repeating criminal activities, and a
detention order under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated.
Moreover, it was submitted that the detention order, as well as the
subsequent confirmation order, were passed by the same officer of
the State Government and hence, there is a violation of the
principles of natural justice. On these premises, it was urged that
the impugned order requires interference.
5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that
in the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was on bail in
the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:97402
specifically adverted to. Likewise, it was 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 that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned
order. According to him, therefore, the order of detention will
legally sustain irrespective of the fact that the detenu was on bail
while the impugned order was passed.
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.P1 detention order. Out of the said
cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is Crime No.697/2025 of Pattambi Police Station, alleging
the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29
of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the
said case occurred on 22.05.2025, and he was arrested on
28.05.2025. As evident from the records, he was granted bail in the
said case on 21.07.2025. It was on 10.07.2025, while the detenu
was under judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was forwarded by the
sponsoring authority. Subsequently, on 27.09.2025, the detention
order was passed.
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:97402
7. The sequence of events narrated above indicates that
there was no unreasonable delay either in initiating the proposal or
in passing the detention order. Moreover, a perusal of the copy of
the impugned order produced along with the writ petition reveals a
written endorsement to the effect that the said order was read over
and translated to the detenu in Malayalam, and that a copy thereof
was served on him. A signature, purportedly that of the detenu,
appears beneath the said endorsement. It is further evident that a
copy of the grounds of detention, prepared in the Malayalam
language to which the detenu is accustomed, was also served on
him.
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
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:97402
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 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 even if the detenu is released on bail with conditions,
he may likely violate those conditions, and there is a high
propensity that the respondent will indulge in drug peddling
activities in the future. Similarly, in Ext.P1 order, it is further stated
that the present bail conditions are not sufficient to curb the
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:97402
criminal activities of the detenu, as he violated similar conditions
twice in the past. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner in the above regard will fail.
10. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that both the detention order and the subsequent
confirmation order were passed by the same officer of the State
Government, and therefore, the proceedings stand vitiated for
violation of the principles of natural justice. We do agree that the
officer who passed the detention order and later confirmed it is one
and the same. However, a plain reading of Section 3(1) of the
PITNDPS Act makes it clear that any officer of the State
Government, not below the rank of a Secretary to that
Government, specifically empowered for the purposes of that
section, can pass a detention order, if satisfied that with a view to
prevent a person from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances, such detention is necessary.
11. Likewise, as provided under Section 9(f) of the PITNDPS
Act, in every case where the Advisory Board reports that, in its
opinion, sufficient cause exists for the detention of a person, the
appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and
continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as
it thinks fit. In the present case, the detention order was passed by
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:97402
an officer of the State Government who had been specifically
empowered for the same. The confirmation order was subsequently
passed by the very same officer, but acting in a different capacity
on behalf of and as authorised by the appropriate Government,
namely the State Government. Therefore, it is discernible that,
even though both orders were passed by the same officer, he acted
in different capacities as permitted under the statute. Moreover,
there is no question of any violation of the principles of natural
justice, particularly since no prejudice has been shown to have
been caused to the detenu. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner in the above regard also would fail.
Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl)No.1740 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:97402
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1740 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
27/09/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT U/S. 3(1)
OF THE PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC
IN NARCOTIC DRUG AND PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES (PITNDPS) ACT, 1988 IN
ENGLISH
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS FOR
DETENTION OF SRI. ARUN KRISHNAN, S/O.
SUKUMARAN, MUNDUKATTIL HOUSE,
MENNENGODE P.O, ATHANI, KOPPAM,
PALAKKAD U/S. 3(1) OF THE PREVENTION
OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUG
AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1988
PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN
MALAYALAM DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
SCREENING COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR
SCRUTINIZING PROPOSALS UNDER PITNDPS
ACT DATED 18/08/2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED NIL
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 02/12/2025
