Kerala High Court
Rajani Rupali Guria vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
FRIDAY, THE 25
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
AJANI RUPALI GURIA
R
AGED 25 YEARS
W/O JERIN THOMAS, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU KARA,
MACHIPLAVU POST OFFICE, PADY BHAGAM, MANNAMKANDAM
VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SRI.LIBIN STANLEY
SMT.SAIPOOJA
SRI.SADIK ISMAYIL
SMT.R.GAYATHRI
SHRI.ALWIN JOSEPH
SHRI.BENSON AMBROSE
RESPONDENTS:
1
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2
HE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
T
(HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,
PIN - 695001
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
2
3
HE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
T
IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P O,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685603
4
HE SUPERINTENDENT
T
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695012
Y ADVS.
B
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
SRI. K.A. ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIS
T WRIT
PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME
UP FOR
FINAL
HEARING
ON
25.07.2025,
THE
COURT
ON
THE
SAME
DAY
DELIVERED
THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
3
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
ThepetitionerhereiniswifeofMr.JerinThomas('thedetenu'forthesake
of brevity), against whom an order of detention has been passed by the 2nd
respondent,invokingpowersunderSection3(1)ofthePreventionofIllicitTraffic
in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988('PITNDPSAct'forthe
sake of brevity).
2. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that Ext.P2 detention
order was issued on 18.03.2025 based on a proposal submitted by the 3rd
respondenton22.11.2024.Ext.P3confirmationorderwaspassedon28.05.2025.
For the purpose of passing an order under the PITNDPS Act, three cases were
considered by the responders. The details of the cases are as under:
(i) Crime No. 57 of 2019 of the Shornur Railway Police Station registered
under Sections 20(b)(ii) B & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for the sake of brevity). In the said
case, the incident is alleged to have takenplaceon13.06.2019,andthe
detenu was arraigned as the 2nd accused.Thecasehasbeenregistered
for alleged possession of 2.490 kilograms of Ganja.
(ii) Crime No. 64 of 2024 of theNarcoticEnforcementSquad,Adimaly,was
registeredunderSection20(b)(ii)Br/w.8(c)&29oftheNDPSAct.Inthe
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
4
saidcase,the1staccusedwasfoundtohavebeeninpossessionof1.3Kg
of Ganja.Theformalarrestofthedetenu,whoisallegedtohavebeena
conspirator, was effected on 05.12.2024. He was grantedbailinthesaid
case on 03.02.2025.
(iii) Crime No. 1138 of 2024 of the Adimaly Police Station registered on
08.11.2024, for the offence punishable under Sections20(b)(ii)B&29of
theND
PSAct,forpossessingabout6.2KgofGanja.Inthesaidcase,the
detenu has beenarrayedasthe3rdaccused.Hewasgrantedbailbythe
Jurisdictional Court on 29.01.2024.
3. Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing for the
detenu, submitted that the detention order is vitiated as thedetainingauthority
aswellasthesponsoringauthorityfailedtoconsiderastowhethertheconditions
imposedbythejurisdictionalcourtatthetimeofgrantofbailinCrimeNo.64of
2024 and Crime No. 1138 of 2024 were sufficient to curtail the detenu from
perpetrating further prejudicial activities. It is urged that except for a passing
mention about Crime No.57of2019ofShornurRailwayPoliceStation,andthat
despite imposition of conditions, the detenu has indulged in further crimes, the
detailsoftheconditionsimposedbythejurisdictionalCourtatthetimeofgrantof
bail were not mentioned ortakennoteof.Thelearnedcounselhasalsoreferred
to a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Padmakumari v.
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
5
State of Kerala1, wherein this Court had occasion to observe that the
jurisdictional authority is bound to take note and also to consider the bail
conditionsclampedonthedetenuwhilegrantingbail,beforepassingtheorderof
detention.
4. In response, it was submitted by Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public
Prosecutor, that it is on account of the repeated involvement of the detenu in
cases involvingnarcoticdrugsthattheproceedingsunderthePITNDPSActwere
initiated.ItispointedoutbythelearnedPublicProsecutorthatfortheinitiationof
proceedings under the Act, the involvement of the detenu in only one crime is
sufficient.Inthecaseon hand,thedetenugothimselfinvolvedinthreecrimes.
He would also refer totheorderanditwassubmittedthatinparagraphNo.8of
Ext.P2, the detaining authority has noted that the detenu has blatantly violated
the stringent conditions imposed in the earliercasesandthathehasrepeatedly
got himself involved in drug cases.
5. We have carefully considered submissions advanced and have
perused the records.
6. In the present case, the order of detention has been issued by
invokingtheprovisionsofthePITNDPSAct.AperusaloftheStatementofObjects
andReasonsoftheActrevealsthatthelegislaturewasdeeplyconcernedwiththe
1
2025:KER:44047
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
6
alarming rise in transit trafficking of illicit narcotic drugs. It was noted that the
spillover effects of such trafficking have led to widespread drug abuse and
addiction across the country. This trend has not only contributedtotheinternal
proliferation of drug abuse but has also triggered a growing illicit demand for
narcoticsubstanceswithinthecountry.Itwasunderstoodthattheproliferationof
drugs poses the serious risk ofescalatingunlawfulcultivation,manufacture,and
distribution of these substances. Though several legislative, administrative, and
preventive measures were implementedincludingthepenalprovisionsunderthe
NDPS Act, these efforts were found to be insufficient in completely curbing the
menaceoftransittrafficking.Itwas,inthesaidcircumstances,thataspecificlaw
was enacted providing for preventive detention as a more effective means of
incapacitating habitual offenders and drug traffickers.
7. Under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act, authority concerned, may, if
satisfied, with respect to any person, including a foreigner, that, with a view to
preventing him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances,itisnecessarysotodo,makeanorderdirectingthatsuchpersonbe
detained. The order of detention reveals that the authority was objectively and
subjectively satisfied, owing to the involvement of the detenu in three crimes
relating to possession of Ganja of intermediatequantitythatanorderunderthe
Actwasrequiredtobeissued.Insofarasthebailconditionsareconcerned,itcan
be seen that authorities took note of the fact that even while granting bail in
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
7
Crime No.57 of 2019 of the Shornur Railway Police Station, a condition was
imposed that the detenu shall not involve himself in any crimes. However,
violating the said conditions, the detenu has got himself involved in two more
crimes.Ithasbeenmentionedintheorderthat"thedetenuhasblatantlyviolated
the stringent conditions imposed in the earlier cases". The detaining authority
hasalsorecordedthatthedetenuisarepeatoffenderwhogivesscantrespectto
the bail conditions and is likely to exploit any leniency given to him.
8. It is common knowledge that recourse to preventive detention can
be taken by the executive merely on suspicion and as a precaution to prevent
activities by the person sought to be detained, prejudicial to certain specified
objectstraceableinavalidlyenactedlaw.Sinceanorderofpreventivedetention
has the effect of invading one's personal liberty merely on suspicion and is not
viewed as punitive, and the facts on which the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority is based for ordering preventive detention is not justiciable,
meaning thereby that it is not open to the Constitutional Courts to enquire
whether the detaining authority has erroneously or correctly reached a
satisfaction on every question of fact and/or has passed an order of detention
which is not justified on facts, resulting in narrowing downofthejurisdictionto
grant relief,itisonlyjustandproperthatsuchdrasticpowerisnotonlyinvoked
in appropriate cases but is also exercised responsibly, rationally and reasonably.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is the foundation for the
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
8
exercise of the power of detention. The Court cannot beinvitedtoconsiderthe
propriety or sufficiency ofthegroundsonwhichthesatisfactionofthedetaining
authority is based. The Court cannot,uponreviewingthegrounds,substituteits
own opinion for that of the authority. The exercise of the power ofdetentionis
not based on an objective determination of the necessity of detention for a
specified purpose butratheronthesubjectiveopinionofthedetainingauthority.
If the detaining authority forms a subjective opinion regarding the necessity of
detention for a specified purpose, the condition for exercising the power of
detentionisfulfilled.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatthesubjectivesatisfaction
of the detaining authority is wholly immune from judicial review. Courts have
carvedoutalimitedareawithinwhichthevalidityofsubjectivesatisfactioncanbe
subjected to judicial scrutiny. The basic principle is that since subjective
satisfaction is a condition precedent for the exercise of the power conferred on
the executive, the Court can always examine whether the requisite satisfaction
was genuinely arrived at by the authority.
9. ItisalsosettledthatthisCourtdoesnotsitinappealinproceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over the decisions taken by the
detaining authority on the basis of the materials placed before the detaining
authorityastowhetherpreventivedetentionisnecessaryorwarranted.Theshort
area of jurisdiction is to ascertain whether subjective satisfaction is entertained
properly on the basis of materials placed before the detaining authority. If the
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
9
entertainment of the latter subjective satisfaction is vitiated by mala fidesorby
total absence of materials or by reference to and reliance on materials which
cannot legally be taken note of, certainlythepowersofjudicialreviewvestedin
thisCourtcanbeinvokedandtheorderofdetentiononthebasisofsuchalleged
subjective satisfactioncanbesetaside.But,certainly,iftherearematerials,itis
notopentothisCourttositinappealoverthesubjectivesatisfactionentertained
by the detaining authority.
10. On a perusal of the records, we are satisfied that allthenecessary
requirements before passing an order under Section 3(1) of PITNDPS Act have
beenscrupulouslycompliedwithinthiscase.Thecompetentauthoritypassedthe
detention order after thoroughly verifying all the materials placed by the
sponsoring authority and after arriving at the requisite objective, as well as
subjective satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed is
vitiated in any manner.
Havingconsideredtheentirefacts,weareoftheviewthatthedetenuhas
not made out any case for interference. This Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
d/-
S
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
PS/APM25/07/25
2025:KER:54777
WP(CRL.) NO. 740 OF 2025
10
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 740/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1
RUE
T COPY
OF
THE
PROPOSAL DATED 22.11.2024
SUBMITTED
BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO INITIATE
ACTION
UNDER
SECTION
3(1) OF
PREVENTION OF
ILLICIT
TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES ACT, 1988 BEFORE
RESPONDENT NO. 2
Exhibit P2
RUE
T COPY
OF THE
DETENTION
ORDER
DATED
18.03.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P3
RUE
T COPY OF THE
ORDER PASSED
BY
THE
RESPONDENT
NO.2
ASG.O
(RT)NO.
1761/2025/HOME
DATED 28.05.2025
