Kerala High Court
Deepti S vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:45235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 409 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
DEEPTI S
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. AJIMON, AJIBHAVAN, KADAVOOROOTTAKKAL,
THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691601
BY ADVS.
SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.THOMAS C.ABRAHAM
SHRI.BASIL MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, ROOM NO. 124,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110001
3 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOLLAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :2: 2025:KER:45235
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP
FOR HEARING ON 23.06.2025, THE COURT ON 24.06.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :3: 2025:KER:45235
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the wife of one Ajimon @ Komban Aji, ('detenu'
for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is
directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 02.11.2024 passed by
the 3rd 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
21.12.2024, 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, Kollam City, the 4th respondent, on 09.07.2024,
seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1)
of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 3rd
respondent. Altogether, eight cases in which the detenu got himself
involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for
passing the impugned order of detention. Out of the eight cases
considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is crime No. 273/2024 of Kollam West Police station alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 29
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :4: 2025:KER:45235
of NDPS Act and Section 86(i) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional
Service Act.
3. We heard Sri. Biju C. Abraham, 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 the
impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority
without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel,
there is inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing
the order of detention, and the said delay would certainly snap the live
link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention,
and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government
Pleader, asserted that there is no unreasonable delay either in
submitting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1 detention order after the
last prejudicial activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable while
passing a detention order, especially when it is the duty of the authority
to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such
an order. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that a hasty
action under KAA(P) Act is not at all desirable especially when an order
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :5: 2025:KER:45235
of detention has a heavy bearing on the personal and fundamental
rights of a citizen. According to the learned Government Pleader, the
detaining authority passed Ext.P1 order after arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no interference is
warranted.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced
and have perused the records.
7. The records show that the detenu was classified as a
"known rowdy", considering his recurrent involvement in eight cases.
While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding the delay
that occurred in submitting the proposal for detention and in passing
the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 3(1) of
KAA(P) Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as
fundamental rights of an individual. So such an order could not be
passed in a casual manner instead, it can only be passed on credible
materials after arriving at the requisite objective and 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
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :6: 2025:KER:45235
offered for the delay.
8. In T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, [1990 SCC Cri
76], 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 examined 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. Keeping in mind the above principles, while coming to the
facts in the present case, it can be seen that the case registered against
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :7: 2025:KER:45235
the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.273/2024 of Kollam West Police Station. The last prejudicial activity
was committed on 07.03.2024, and he was arrested on the same day.
It was thereafter, on 16.03.2024, the detenu was released on bail. The
records further reveal that the District Police Chief, Kollam City,
submitted the proposal to the competent authority for initiation of
proceedings under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act on 09.07.2024.
Therefore, it is decipherable that there is a delay of more than 4
months and two days in submitting the proposal after the commission
of the last prejudicial activity. Likewise, the impugned order of
detention was passed only on 02.11.2024, i.e., after around more than
seven and a half months from the date of the last prejudicial activity.
The said delay cannot be justified as necessary for observing natural
justice principles.
10. Curiously, in the impugned order itself, it is admitted that
there occurred some delay in mooting the proposal. The reason for the
said delay shown in the impugned order is that when the proposal was
examined by the Government, it was found that entries in the checklist
are not duly filled and hence, directed the sponsoring authority to
submit the same after proper correction. Thereafter, it was on
05.08.2024, the District Police Chief, Kollam City, submitted the revised
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :8: 2025:KER:45235
checklist. Subsequently, the report of the screening committee was
received by the Government only on 23.09.2024. We are of the view
that said procedural delay alone is not sufficient to justify the long delay
in passing the order. Notably, no explanation whatsoever has been
offered by the jurisdictional authority in the impugned order for the
long delay occurred in forwarding the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the PITNDPS Act.
11. If the District Police Chief, who mooted the proposal was having
bonafide apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social activities
by the detenu, definitely he would have acted swiftly after the last
prejudicial activity. In the case at hand, as already stated, there is a
delay of more than 4 months in mooting the proposal for the detention
order. The delay in mooting the proposal itself shows that the proposed
officer did not have any genuine apprehension regarding the immediate
repetition of criminal activities by the detenu. If the true objective was
to prevent the detenu from engaging in anti-social activities, the
authority ought to have acted with greater alacrity in submitting the
proposal and issuing the consequent order. Therefore, the only
conclusion that can be arrived at is that the live link between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped.
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :9: 2025:KER:45235
12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and Ext.P1 order
of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Ajimon @
Komban Aji 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, Thiruvananthapuram forthwith.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.)No.409/2025 :10: 2025:KER:45235
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 409/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
HOME/SSCI/61/2024-HOME DATED 02/11/2024
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.
DCKLM/4722/2022/M16 DATED 29/06/2022
