Kerala High Court
Tresa Pereira.V vs State Of Kerala on 16 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:68859
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 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 25TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1173 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
TRESA PEREIRA.V
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O RICHARD PEREIRA, PUSHPA VILASAM,
NEAR ST. ANDREWS, MENAMKULAM VILLAGE,
THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695586
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)
THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN - 695010
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:68859
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:68859
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 26.07.2025 passed against one Retric, S/o. Richad (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 none other than the mother of the
detenu.
2. The records reveal that, on 04.04.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Thiruvananthapuram City, seeking initiation of proceedings against
the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the
jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, five cases in
which the detenu got involved have been considered by the
jurisdictional authority while passing the order of detention.
3. Out of the said cases considered by the jurisdictional
authority, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is Crime No.241/2025 of Kazhakuttom Police Station,
alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b),
2(b)(ii)A and 29 of the NDPS Act. The allegation in the said case is
that on 14.02.2025, the detenu, along with the co-accused were
found possessing and transporting 3.433 gms of methamphetamine
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:68859
and 1.817 gms of ganja in a scooter bearing registration No.KL-22-K-
6987, in contravention of the provisions contained under the NDPS
Act.
4. We heard Sri.Benson Ambrose, 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.P2 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. According to the learned counsel, the
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu in the order
granting bail to him in the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity was not considered by the jurisdictional authority
while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel further
urged that the bail conditions clamped on the detenu were sufficient
to deter him from being involved in criminal activities and therefore,
an order of preventive detention was not at all necessary. The
learned counsel further submitted that the delay occurred in
mooting the proposal as well as in passing the impugned order of
detention will snap the livelink between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of detention. On these premises, it was contended
that Ext.P2 order is liable to be set aside.
6. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:68859
Ext.P2 order was passed upon proper application of mind and after
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.
Moreover, it was urged that the sufficiency of bail conditions
imposed on the detenu while granting bail to him in crime
No.241/2025 of Kazhakuttom Police Station was duly considered by
the jurisdictional authority, and it was after being satisfied that the
said conditions are not sufficient to deter the detenu from involving
in further criminal activities the impugned order of detention was
passed. According to the Government Pleader, there is no inordinate
delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the impugned
order of detention as claimed in this writ petition. The learned
Government Pleader urged that the impugned order requires no
interference as the same was passed after proper application of
mind and after adhering to the procedural formalities mentioned
under the KAA(P) Act.
7. The records reveal that the impugned order of detention
was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities. As already
stated, five cases in which the detenu was involved were considered
by the detaining authority for passing the detention order. One of
the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that there is inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in
passing the detention order. According to the counsel, the said delay
will certainly snap the livelink between the last prejudicial activity
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:68859
and the purpose of detention.
8. While considering the contention of the petitioner
regarding the delay in passing the impugned order, it could not be
ignored that an order under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS has a
significant impact on the personal as well as the fundamental rights
of an individual. Therefore, such an order could not be passed in a
casual manner; instead, it can only be passed on credible materials
and 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.
9. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [(1989) 4
SCC 741], 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
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:68859
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 explained 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.
10. Having regard to the principles enumerated in the above
decision, while coming to the facts in the present case, it can be
seen that the incident which led to the registration of the case with
respect to the last prejudicial activity was occurred on 14.02.2025.
The detenu along with his companion, was caught red-handed with
the contraband on the same day itself. Thereafter, it was only on
22.05.2025, he was released on bail. It was on 04.04.2025, while he
was under judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial
activity, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
PITNDPS Act were initiated. Thereafter, the impugned order of
detention was passed on 26.07.2025.
11. The sequence of events narrated above clearly shows
that there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:68859
passing the impugned order of detention. Moreover, five cases in
which the detenu is involved formed the basis for the impugned
order of detention. Therefore, some minimum time is required to
collect the details of the said cases and for verification of the
records. Notably, from 14.02.2025 to 22.05.2025, the detenu was in
judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity. Since
he was in jail during that period, there was no imminent
apprehension regarding the repetition of criminal activities by him.
Therefore, the delay occurred in mooting the proposal is justifiable.
In passing the impugned order also there is no unreasonable delay.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
sticking to the delay, is only liable to be discarded.
12. The learned counsel further submitted that the
sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu in the order
granting bail to the detenu in crime No.241/2025 of Kazhakuttom
Police Station was not considered by the jurisdictional authority
while passing the impugned order. While considering the contention
of the counsel for the petitioner in the above regard, it is to be noted
that there is no law that precludes the jurisdictional authority to
pass an order of detention against a person who is already on bail.
However, when an order of detention is passed against a person who
is on bail, it is imperative upon the authority to take note of the said
fact and to consider whether the bail conditions imposed on such a
person while granting bail by the court are sufficient to prevent the
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:68859
detenu from being involved in criminal activities. Keeping in mind
the above, while reverting to the case at hand, it can be seen that in
the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was released on
bail in crime No.241/2025 of Kazhakuttom Police Station is
specifically adverted to. It is true that the conditions imposed by the
court while granting bail are not extracted in the impugned order.
However, there is no requirement of law that the bail condition
should be extracted in the impugned order but what is required is
the consideration of the sufficiency of bail conditions by the
jurisdictional authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction
necessary for passing an order of detention against a person who is
already on bail.
13. Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the
impugned order, it can be seen that in the impugned order, it is
stated that the detenu has blatantly violated the bail conditions in
earlier cases and has been continuously involved in narcotic crimes.
It is further mentioned that the sponsoring authority has pointed out
that the accused is a habitual offender who gives scant respect to
the bail conditions and is likely to exploit any leniency given to him
by the justice system. Likewise, in the impugned order, it is
succinctly mentioned that the present bail conditions are not
sufficient for curbing the detenu's criminal nature, since similar bail
conditions have been blatantly violated by the detenu in the past.
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 10 ::
2025:KER:68859
14. Virtually, a bare reading of the impugned order reveals
that the jurisdictional authority passed the order after being
satisfied that the bail conditions imposed on the detenu are not
sufficient to deter him from being involved in criminal activities
further. Likewise, the actions under ordinary criminal law will not
suffice to prevent his propensity to engage in criminal activities.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed under Section 3(1)
of the PITNDPS Act is vitiated in any manner.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the detenu has
not made out any case for interference. Hence, the writ petition fails
and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl)No.1173 of 2025 :: 11 ::
2025:KER:68859
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1173/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED
04.04.2025 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
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
DATED 26.07.2025 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS FOR
DETENTION
