Kerala High Court
Tanka Batra vs State Of Kerala on 22 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:70671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025/31ST BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1214 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
TANKA BATRA, AGED 25 YEARS
S/O ARJUN BATRA, HARIJAN SAHI, DAKULAGUDA,
BADABUDAHADA, RAYGADA, KUTTIKKATTOR, ODISHA,
INDIA, PIN - 765019
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,
WP(Crl.) No.1214/2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:70671
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L & O)
KOCHI CITY, THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER'S
OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER, KARIKKAMURI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
SRI.K.A.ANAS GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No.1214/2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:70671
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 11.07.2025 passed against one Sudhira Batra, S/o Kalia Batra
(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 cousin brother of the detenu.
2. The records reveal that on 24.04.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi 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 was involved have been considered by the jurisdictional
authority for passing the impugned order of detention.
3. Out of the two cases considered, the case registered with
respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is Crime
No.1031/2024 of Kalamassery Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)C and 29 of the NDPS
Act. The detenu is arrayed as the 1st accused in the said case. The
allegation in the said case is that on 11.11.2024, the 1st accused,
WP(Crl.) No.1214/2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:70671
along with other accused persons, were found in possession of 59.24
kg of ganja for the purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions
of the NDPS Act.
4. We heard Smt. Saipooja, 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 of detention was passed without proper
application of mind and on improper consideration of facts.
According to the counsel, the detention order was passed without
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.
The learned counsel further submitted that, though the impugned
order was passed on 11.07.2025, the same was executed only on
13.08.2025. 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.P2 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
complying with all the necessary legal formalities and after proper
application of mind. According to the learned Government Pleader,
the detaining authority passed the order after arriving at the
WP(Crl.) No.1214/2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:70671
required objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence no
interference is warranted in the impugned order.
7. While considering the rival contentions, the first and
foremost aspect that needs to be taken note of is that, in the case at
hand, the proceedings for taking action under the PITNDPS Act
were initiated while the detenu was under judicial custody in
connection with the last prejudicial activity. The date of occurrence
of the incident, which led to the registration of the case with respect
to the last prejudicial activity, was on 11.11.2024. It was on the
same day, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody. Subsequently, on 24.05.2025, the detenu got bail in the
said case. However, he was not released on the said day from jail as
he was under judicial custody in connection with another case.
Anyhow, as evident from the records, it was on 24.04.2025, on
month prior to the order granting bail to the detenu, the sponsoring
authority mooted the proposal for the initiation of proceedings
under the PITNDPS Act against the detenu. Virtually, there is a
delay of more than five months in mooting the proposal and a total
delay of around eight months in passing the impugned order of
detention after the date of the last prejudicial activity. However, as
already stated, on the alleged date of occurrence of the last
prejudicial activity itself, the detenu was arrested, and he was
remanded to judicial custody. As the detenu was in jail, there was
no basis for any apprehension regarding the repetition of the
WP(Crl.) No.1214/2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:70671
offence by him. Therefore, the delay occurred in mooting the
proposal as well as in passing the order is justifiable, and it could
not be said that the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and
the purpose of detention is snapped.
8. However, from a perusal of the records, it is evident that
the impugned order was executed only on 13.08.2025, although the
same was passed on 11.07.2025. In essence, there is a delay of
around one month in executing the impugned order. As evident from
the record, at the time of passing the impugned order, the detenu
was readily available in the jail in connection with another case.
Therefore, it was very well possible for the authority concerned to
execute the order swiftly. The delayed execution of the impugned
order is fatal, particularly when no explanation whatsoever has been
assigned for the said delay. When there is no special 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.P2 order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central
Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the
detenu, Sri.Sudhira Batra forthwith, if his detention is not
required in connection with any other case.
WP(Crl.) No.1214/2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:70671
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.1214/2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:70671
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1214/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED
24.04.2025 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT
NO.3 TO INITIATE ACTION UNDER
SECTION 3(1) OF PREVENTION OF
ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC DRUGS
AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT,
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC
NO. 1507/2025 DATED 24.05.2025
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC
NO. 3046/2025 DATED 30.06.2025
