Kerala High Court
Jolphin Kurian vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:78786
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 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025/1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1326 OF 2025
CRIME NO.530/2025 OF Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki
PETITIONER:
JOLPHIN KURIAN, AGED 37 YEARS
W/O MARTIN N.S @ODIYAN MARTIN, NELLICKAL HOUSE,
EDAVETTY, MARTHOMA, KARIKKODE, THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKKI., PIN - 685588
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA M.S.
SHRI.K.ABDUL NASSAR
SHRI.VISHNU DEV C.S.
SHRI.ABBAS SALIM
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
WP(Crl.) No.1326/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:78786
3 THE SECRETARY
ADVISORY BOARD, (KAAPA/PITNDPS/COFEPOSA/NSA
ACTS) SREENIVAS, PADAM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682026
4 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
THE STATE POLICE CHIEF OFFICE , VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA -, PIN - 695010
5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI -,
PIN - 685603
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -, PIN - 695012
7 THE SHO, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI -, PIN - 685584
BY ADVS.
SRI. K.A. ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1326/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:78786
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
19.08.2025 passed against one Martin N.S. @ Jinil @ Odiyan Martin
(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 03.04.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Idukki, the 5th respondent,
seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section
3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd
respondent. Altogether, eight 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.530/2025 of Thodupuzha Police Station, alleging
commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) of the
NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. Shiraz Abdulla M.S., the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A.Anas, the learned
WP(Crl.) No.1326/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:78786
Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P3 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 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.P3
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.P3 detention order.
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 verifying the details of the cases in which the
detenu is involved, and hence a minimal delay in passing the order is
quite natural and the same is justifiable. According to the learned
Government Pleader, as the detaining authority passed Ext.P3 order
after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
WP(Crl.) No.1326/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:78786
6. While considering the contention of the petitioner regarding
the delay that occurred 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 an unexplained long delay in passing the detention order, the
same would certainly result in snapping of the live link between the
last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.
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 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
WP(Crl.) No.1326/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:78786
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.530/2025 of Thodupuzha Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. The
last prejudicial activity was committed on 20.03.2025, and the detenu
was arrested and released on bail on the same day. The records
further reveal that the District Police Chief, Idukki, submitted the
proposal to the competent authority for initiation of proceedings
under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act on 03.04.2025. Therefore, it is
decipherable that there is no unreasonable delay in submitting the
proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial activity. However,
the impugned order of detention was passed only on 19.08.2025, i.e.,
after around five months from the date of the last prejudicial activity.
The said delay cannot be justified as necessary for observing natural
justice principles. Moreover, it cannot be ignored that the detenu got
WP(Crl.) No.1326/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:78786
bail in the last prejudicial activity on the same day of his arrest. As
the detenu was on bail, there was every propensity of his being
involved in criminal activities again. In the said background, the
authorities should have been more vigilant and passed the detention
order without any delay. Therefore, the unreasonable delay occurred
in passing the order of detention is not at all justifiable on the facts of
the present case.
9. That apart, as evident from the impugned order itself,
after the receipt of the proposal, the Government had forwarded the
same 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
25.06.2025. However, even after the receipt of the opinion of the
Advisory Board, there is a delay of around two months in passing the
detention order. Notably, no convincing 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.
10. If the jurisdictional authority had a bona fide
apprehension regarding the repetition of anti-social activities, it would
WP(Crl.) No.1326/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:78786
have acted swiftly upon receiving the screening committee's report,
instead of sitting over it for more than 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 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.
11. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the Ext.P3
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu,
Sri. Martin @ Jinil @ Odiyan Martin, 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
ncd
WP(Crl.) No.1326/2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:78786
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1326/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 530/2025
DATED 20-03-2025 REGISTERED BY THE
7TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE DETENU
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRIM NO.
530/2025 IN JFCM-1, IDUKKI DTD 21-03-
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
NO. HOME-SSC2/113/2025-HOME DATED 19-
08-2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
AGAINST DETENU
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.
1372/2016 DATED 08-11-2016 OF THE
LEARNED JFCM COURT, THODUPUZHA
AGAINST DETENU
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 03-09-2025 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT THROUGH THE 6TH
RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF DETENU BY
THE PETITIONER
