Kerala High Court
Padmakumari vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:44047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 396 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PADMAKUMARI
AGED 59 YEARS
W/O RADHAKRISHNAN, RESHMA NIVAS, THONDAKULANGARA,
AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688013
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 - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
(HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ALAPPUZHA, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE,
MUKHAM PURAYIDOM, CIVIL STATION WARD,
ALAPPUZHA- 688012
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695012
WP(Crl)No.396 of 2025 :2:
2025:KER:44047
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 19.06.2025, THE COURT ON 20.06.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.396 of 2025 :3:
2025:KER:44047
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the mother of One Rahul Krishnan @ Rahul
Radhakrishnan, ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge
in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P2 order of detention
dated 04.09.2024 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). After considering
the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by
the Government vide order dated 16.11.2024, 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 a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Alappuzha, on 23.05.2024, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS
Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent.
Altogether, five cases in which the detenu got himself involved have
been considered by the detaining authority for passing the impugned
order of detention, and the details of the said cases are given below:-
WP(Crl)No.396 of 2025 :4:
2025:KER:44047
Present
Sl. Offences involved
Crime No. Police Station Crime Date status of
No. under Sections
case
Ambalapuzha U/s.8(c),22(c) and 29
1 74/2013 14.01.2013 Pending trial
Police Station of NDPS Act
Edathua Police
304/2016 03.04.2016 U/s. 22(c) of NDPS Act Pending trial
2 Station
U/s. 22(b) and 29 of
Ambalapuzha Pending trial
3 159/2017 04.02.2017 NDPS Act
Police Station
Excise
Enforcement
U/s.8(c) r/w
and
4 120/2017 24.08.2017 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Convicted
Anti-Narcotic
Act
Special Squad,
Alappuzha
Kayamkulam U/s. 8(c) r/w 22(b) of
5 289/2024 09.03.2024 Pending trial
Police Station NDPS Act
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 submitted that,
Ext. P2 order of detention was passed without proper application of
mind and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel, although the
impugned order of detention was passed while the detenu was on
bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity,
the said fact is not properly taken note of by the jurisdictional
authority while passing the impugned order. Moreover, it was further
contended that the jurisdictional authority failed to consider the
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu by the court
WP(Crl)No.396 of 2025 :5:
2025:KER:44047
in the bail order. According to the counsel, the conditions imposed by
the court in the bail order would certainly be sufficient to prevent the
detenu from repeating criminal activities, and an order of preventive
detention was not at all necessitated. The counsel further submitted
that the jurisdictional authority would have passed such an order only
on being satisfied that the said bail conditions are not sufficient to
restrain the detenu from repeating the criminal activities.
Nevertheless, in the impugned order, there is nothing to suggest that
the same was passed by the jurisdictional authority after being
satisfied that the conditions imposed are not sufficient to deter the
detenu from repeating criminal activities, and hence, the order is
liable to be interfered with.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that, the detention order was passed after complying with all the
necessary legal formalities and after proper application of mind. The
learned Government Pleader further submitted that the jurisdictional
authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was on bail in
the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, and
the sufficiency of the bail conditions clamped on the detenu was also
considered by the authority while passing the impugned order.
According to the Government Pleader, as the detention order is one
WP(Crl)No.396 of 2025 :6:
2025:KER:44047
passed after proper application of mind and after arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, no interference
is warranted.
6. The prime contention taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority, while passing the
order of detention, failed to take note of the fact that the detenu was
released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the
last prejudicial activity and also failed to consider the sufficiency of
bail conditions imposed by the court while granting bail to the
detenu. While considering the said contentions, it is to be noted that
the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.289/2024 of Kayamkulam Police
Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under
Section 22(b) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act. The date of occurrence of the
said case was on 09.03.2024. The records further reveal that the
detenu was arrested in the said case on 09.03.2024 and
subsequently released on bail on 14.05.2024. It was thereafter, on
04.09.2024, the impugned order of detention was passed. The
sequence of the events narrated above reveals that it was while the
detenu was on bail in the last case registered against him, the
impugned order was passed. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the
WP(Crl)No.396 of 2025 :7:
2025:KER:44047
jurisdictional authority to take note of that fact and also to consider
the bail conditions clamped on the detenu by the court while granting
bail. Moreover, the jurisdictional authority should have passed such
an order of detention only after being satisfied that the said bail
conditions are not sufficient to restrain the detenu from repeating the
criminal activities.
7. Evidently, in the impugned order, it is specifically
mentioned that on 14.05.2024, the detenu was released on bail in
the last case registered against him. However, the impugned order
does not reflect that the conditions imposed at the time of granting
bail in the last case registered against the detenu were properly
considered by the jurisdictional authority. In Ext. P2 order, it is
nowhere mentioned that the conditions imposed while granting bail
to the detenu in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity are not sufficient to deter the detenu from
repeating criminal activities. In short, it is liable to be held that there
is nothing to suggest that Ext. P2 detention order was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after being satisfied that the conditions
imposed in the bail order are not sufficient to deter the detenu from
involving in criminal activities. Hence, the impugned order is vitiated
and liable to be interfered with.
WP(Crl)No.396 of 2025 :8:
2025:KER:44047
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P2
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu,
Sri.Rahul Krishnan @ Rahul Radhakrishnan, 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/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl)No.396 of 2025 :9:
2025:KER:44047
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 396/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL NO. D1-35387/2024A
DATED 23.05.2024 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
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
HOME-SSC1/57/2024 DATED 04.09.2024 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 AS G.O (RT)NO. 3374/2024/HOME
DATED 16.11.2024
