Kerala High Court
Vipin Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:78003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 29TH ASWINA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1327 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
VIPIN CHANDRAN
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O.CHANDRA BABU, KALLUKKANDY HOUSE,
NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673613
BY ADVS.
SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
SRI.BABU JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
(HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER) II
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, PIN - 695014
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON
POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1327 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:78003
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 17.08.2025, passed against one Vishnu Chandran S/o. Chandra
Babu (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 brother of the detenu.
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, the 3rd
respondent, on 12.05.2025, seeking initiation of proceedings against
the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the
jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, three cases in
which the detenu got involved have been considered by the
jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order of detention.
Out of the three cases considered, the case registered with respect to
the last prejudicial activity is crime No.209/2025 of Medical College
Police Station, alleging commission of offenses punishable under
Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri.Vivek Venugopal, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
WP(Crl.) No.1327 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:78003
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 an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as
in passing the detention order, and the said delay would certainly snap
the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of
detention. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of
detention is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that
there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in
passing the Ext.P2 detention order after the commission of 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 further urged
that the detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no
interference is warranted in the impugned order.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and
have perused the records.
7. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding
WP(Crl.) No.1327 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:78003
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 the PITNDPS 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 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
WP(Crl.) No.1327 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:78003
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 the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No. 209/2025 of Medical College Police Station, alleging commission of
offenses punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The
last prejudicial activity was committed on 11.02.2025, and he was
arrested on the same day. It was thereafter, on 13.05.2025, that the
detenu was released on bail. The records further reveal that the
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, submitted
the proposal to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings
under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act on 12.05.2025. Therefore, it is
decipherable that there is a delay of around three months in
submitting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial
activity. Likewise, the impugned order of detention was passed on
17.08.2025. While considering the delay that occurred in mooting the
proposal, it cannot be undermined that from 11.02.2025, the date of
occurrence of the last prejudicial activity, till 13.05.2025, the detenu
was under judicial custody. As the detenu was in jail, there was no
WP(Crl.) No.1327 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:78003
basis for any apprehension regarding the immediate repetition of
criminal activities by the detenu. Notably, the proposal was mooted on
the previous day of the release of the detenu from jail. Therefore, we
are of the view that the short delay that occurred in mooting the
proposal is only negligible.
10. However, as evident from the impugned order itself, the
Government had forwarded the proposal for the opinion of the
screening committee, and the said committee, in turn, had examined
the proposal in detail and submitted its opinion that it is a fit case for
issuing an order of detention under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act.
The said report showing the opinion of the screening committee was
received by the Government on 18.07.2025. Even thereafter, there is a
delay of around one month in passing the detention order. Notably, no
explanation whatsoever has been offered by the jurisdictional authority
in the impugned order for the long delay that occurred in passing the
detention order, even after the receipt of the report of the screening
committee.
11. If the jurisdictional authority had a bona fide apprehension
regarding the repetition of anti-social activities, it would have acted
swiftly upon receiving the screening committee's report, instead of
sitting over it for around one month. 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 passing the detention
WP(Crl.) No.1327 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:78003
order. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the
livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of
detention has been snapped.
12. 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.Vishnu Chandran 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/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1327 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:78003
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1327/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL 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 DATED
17.08.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED
BY THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA TO
THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY DATED
26.05.2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.VENKITESH
SANTHAN DATED 07.08.2025
