Kerala High Court
Ansaina A.N vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:78119
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. 1325 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ANSAINA A.N
AGED 25 YEARS
W/O SADAKATHALI, TC 35/173(88/124), MA NIVAS,
CHEELANTHIMUKKU, JUMA MASJID RAOD, VALLAKKADAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695008
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,, PIN - 682031
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L&O) II
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, POLICE GROUND,
CV RAMAN PILLAI ROAD, PANAVILA, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695014
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
WP(Crl.) No.1325 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:78119
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.1325 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:78119
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 19.09.2025 passed against one Sadakathali, S/o. Hussain
(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.
2. The records reveal that on 17.05.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram City, the 3rd respondent, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS
Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent.
Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got involved have been
considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the
impugned order of detention. Out of the said cases considered, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against
the detenu is Crime No.39/2025 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 25, and 29
of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned
WP(Crl.) No.1325 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:78119
Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P2 order of detention was passed on improper consideration of
facts and without arriving at the requisite objective as well as
subjective satisfaction. According to the learned counsel, there is an
inordinate delay in mooting the proposal for initiation of proceedings
under the PITNDPS Act against the detenu and in passing the
detention order, and the said delay will certainly snap the live link
between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On
these premises, it was urged that Ext.P1 order is vitiated and is
liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned Government Pleader,
submitted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting
the proposal or in passing Ext.P2 detention order after the date of
the last prejudicial activity. According to the Government Pleader,
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. Moreover,
a reasonable time would be necessary for collecting the details of the
cases in which the detenu is involved, and minimal delay in mooting
the proposal and passing the order is quite natural and hence
justifiable. According to the learned Government Pleader, as the
WP(Crl.) No.1325 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:78119
detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, no interference
is warranted in the impugned order.
6. 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 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.
7. 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
WP(Crl.) No.1325 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:78119
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.
8. 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.39/2025 of Pozhiyoor Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 25, and 29 of the NDPS
Act. The last prejudicial activity was committed on 09.01.2025, and
the detenu was arrested on the same day. It was thereafter, on
05.03.2025, that the detenu got bail in the said case. 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
WP(Crl.) No.1325 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:78119
PITNDPS Act on 17.05.2025. Therefore, it is decipherable that there
is a delay of more than four months in submitting the proposal after
the commission of the last prejudicial activity. Likewise, the
impugned order of detention was passed only on 19.09.2025, i.e.,
after around eight months from the date of the last prejudicial
activity. The said delay cannot be justified as necessary for observing
natural justice principles.
9. We are not oblivious of the fact that from 09.01.2025 till
05.03.2025, the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with
the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the
learned Government Pleader, there was no imminent danger
regarding the repetition of criminal activity by the detenu. However,
the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act
was mooted only after the release of the detenu from jail on bail, and
that too after more than four months from the date of the last
prejudicial activity. If the sponsoring authority had any bona fide
apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities by the
detenu, it would have acted with more vigilance, and the proposal
would have been mooted without unreasonable delay. Notably, no
convincing explanation whatsoever has been offered by the
jurisdictional authority in the impugned order for the long delay that
occurred both in forwarding the proposal for initiation of
proceedings under the PITNDPS Act and in passing the detention
WP(Crl.) No.1325 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:78119
order.
10. If the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who mooted the
proposal, was having bona fide apprehension regarding the
repetition of anti-social activities by the detenu, 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 four 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 authorities 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.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the Ext.P2
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu,
Sri.Sadakathali, forthwith, if his detention is not required in
connection with any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
WP(Crl.) No.1325 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:78119
Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram,
forthwith.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No.1325 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:78119
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1325/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED
17.05.2025 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
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED
19.09.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2
