Kerala High Court
Mini vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:74849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 17TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1234 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
MINI
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O BIJUKUMAR, VISHAKHAM VEEDU, KALIYILUVILA,
PERUMKULAM, MYLOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 691566
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL
SHRI.NIJAZ JALEEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
OFFICEM OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695000
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOLLAM (RURAL), KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691506
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUNNICODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691508
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1234 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:74849
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 31.01.2025 passed against one Bijukumar @ Perumkulam
Biju, S/o. Raghavan Pillai (herein after referred to as 'detenu'),
under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 ('PITNDPS Act' for
brevity). The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. After
considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands
confirmed by the Government vide order dated 26.04.2025, 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 25.11.2024, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Kollam Rural, the 3rd
respondent, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu
under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional
authority, the 1st respondent. Altogether, nine cases in which the
detenu was involved have been considered by the jurisdictional
authority for passing the impugned order of detention.
3. Out of the nine cases considered, the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is
WP(Crl.) No.1234 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:74849
crime No.972/2024 of Kunnikode Police Station, alleging commission
of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
The allegation in the said case is that on 27.08.2024, the detenu was
found in possession of 3.750 kgs of ganja for the purpose of sale in
contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.
4. We heard Sri. K.V.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 order of detention was passed on improper consideration of
facts and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel further contended that,
though the impugned order was passed on 31.01.2025, the same
was executed only on 18.02.2025. According to the counsel, the said
delay in executing the order is unjustifiable and will breach the
statutory provision regarding the execution of such an order. On
these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is vitiated and is
liable to be set aside.
6. Per contra, Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government
Pleader, submitted that the order of detention was passed after
WP(Crl.) No.1234 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:74849
complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper
application of mind. According to the learned Government Pleader,
there was no deliberate lapse on the part of the authorities in
executing the detention order, and the short delay in executing the
order occurred since the detenu was affected with Chickenpox
immediately after passing the impugned order. The learned
Government Pleader further submitted that the detaining authority
passed the detention order after arriving at the required objective as
well as subjective satisfaction, and hence no interference is
warranted in the impugned order.
7. From the rival contentions raised from both sides, it is
gatherable that the main dispute that revolves around is with
respect to the delay that occurred in executing the detention order.
The date of occurrence of the incident, which led to the registration
of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity, was on
27.08.2024. It was on the same day, the detenu was arrested and
remanded to judicial custody. As evident from the records, it was on
25.11.2024, while the detenu was under judicial custody, the
sponsoring authority mooted the proposal for the initiation of
proceedings under the PITNDPS Act against the detenu.
8. Likewise, from a perusal of the records, it is evident that
WP(Crl.) No.1234 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:74849
the impugned order was passed on 31.01.2025. However, quite
surprisingly, the said order was executed only on 18.02.2025. In
essence, there is a delay of eighteen days in executing the impugned
order. As already stated, at the time when the impugned order was
passed, the detenu was readily available in the jail in connection
with the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, it was very well possible
for the authority concerned to execute the order swiftly. Although
the learned Government Pleader contended that the delay in
execution occurred as the detenu was affected with Chickenpox
during the relevant period, the said explanation cannot be accepted
as satisfactory. The execution of the order and the communication of
the grounds of arrest need not have been postponed merely on
account of the detenu's illness. The delayed execution of the
impugned order is fatal, particularly when the explanation offered is
not a convincing one. When there is no convincing reason that
justifies the delayed execution, the same is a ground to interfere
with the impugned order, as the same breaches the statutory
provisions.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the
Ext.P1 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central
Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri.
Bijukumar @ Perumkulam Biju, forthwith, if his detention is not
WP(Crl.) No.1234 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:74849
required in connection with any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1234 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:74849
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1234/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION
WIDE NO. HOME-SSC1/153/2024-HOME
DATED 31.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.07.2025 IN CC NO. 302/ 2016 OF THE
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, KOTTARAKARA
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
21.07.2025 IN ST NO. 6024/ 2017 OF
THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, KOTTARAKARA
