Kerala High Court
Rosamma Selestine vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:72190
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 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1202 OF 2025
CRIME NO.1024/2024 OF Thadiyittaparamba Police Station,
Ernakulam
PETITIONER:
ROSAMMA SELESTINE
AGED 67 YEARS
D/O LATE SELESTEIN, CHELEKKADU HOUSE,
OORAKKADU, EDATHALA P.O, POOKKATTUPADY,
ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683561
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ANEESH K.R
SHRI.JOSEPH BEN
SMT.ANJANA P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF ERNAKULAM RURAL
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(Crl.) No. 1202 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:72190
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 16.06.2025 passed against one Cheriyan Joseph ('detenu' for
the sake of brevity), 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. After considering the opinion of the
Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the
Government vide order dated 18.08.2025, and the detenu has
been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect
from the date of detention.
2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the
District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, on 24.02.2025, seeking
initiation of proceedings against the detenu under 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 order
of detention. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1024/2024
of Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, alleging the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the
WP(Crl.) No. 1202 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:72190
NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri.Aneesh K.R., the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.K.A. Anas, the learned
Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without
proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel,
there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in
passing the order of detention, and hence, the live link between
the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is
snapped. The learned counsel further urged that the jurisdictional
authority passed the impugned order of detention without taking
note of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, and the
conditions imposed on him at the time of granting bail itself were
sufficient to deter the detenu from being involved in further
criminal activities. According to the learned counsel, the
sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly considered by
the jurisdictional authority, and passed the impugned order in a
mechanical manner. On these premises, the learned counsel
submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
WP(Crl.) No. 1202 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:72190
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
that there is no delay in passing the Ext.P1 detention order. He
pointed out that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under
the PITNDPS Act was mooted on the day on which the detenu got
bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity. It was further submitted that although the detenu got bail
in the last case registered against him, he was undergoing judicial
custody in the last but one case registered against him, and
virtually, the proposal was mooted while the detenu was under
judicial custody, and hence, no delay is attributable in mooting the
proposal. The learned Government pleader further submitted that
the jurisdictional authority passed the Ext.P1 order after taking
note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the
last prejudicial activity and after being satisfied that the bail
conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not
sufficient to prevent him from being involved in criminal activities.
The learned Government Pleader further urged that the order of
detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper
application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as
well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no
interference.
6. The records reveal that the detention order was
passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the
WP(Crl.) No. 1202 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:72190
recurrent involvement of the detenu in criminal activities. As
already stated, two cases in which the detenu got involved formed
the basis for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.1024/2024 of Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, alleging the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w
8(c) of the NDPS Act. The allegation in the said case is that the
detenu kept 2 kgs of ganja for the purpose of sale under a culvert
situated at Chemmalapady in contravention of the provisions of
the NDPS Act. The detenu was caught red-handed with ganja on
10.12.2024. As evident from the records, he was granted bail in
the said case on 24.02.2025. However, he was not released from
jail as he was remanded in judicial custody in connection with
another case registered as crime No.992/2024 of
Thadiyittaparambu Police Station. Subsequently, it was only on
05.05.2025, the detenu was released on bail in the case registered
as crime No.992/2024. It was on 24.02.2025, the proposal for
initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was forwarded
by the sponsoring authority. We are cognizant of the fact that
there is a delay of more than two months in mooting the proposal.
However, while considering the said delay, it cannot be ignored
that till 05.05.2025, the detenu was under judicial custody. Since
the detenu was in jail till 05.05.2025, obviously, there was no basis
for any apprehension regarding the imminent repetition of
WP(Crl.) No. 1202 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:72190
criminal activities by him. Therefore, the short delay that occurred
in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order
is only negligible and is of little consequence.
7. One of the main contentions taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that it was without taking note of the
fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered
with respect to the last prejudicial activity and without
considering the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed by the
court at the time of granting bail, the jurisdictional authority
passed the the impugned order of detention. 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 from passing 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 incumbent
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 restrain him from being
involved in criminal activities. Undisputedly, an order of detention
is a drastic measure against a person. Therefore, when there are
other effective remedies available under the ordinary criminal law
to deter a person from engaging in criminal activities, an order of
preventive detention is neither necessitated nor legally
WP(Crl.) No. 1202 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:72190
permissible. Therefore, when a person is already on bail, the
compelling circumstances that necessitated passing an order of
detention should be reflected in the order itself.
8. 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 the cases registered
against him is specifically adverted to. Moreover, in the impugned
order, the sufficiency of the bail conditions is also seen properly
considered by the jurisdictional authority. In the impugned order,
it is specifically mentioned that the detenu is a person having no
regard to the bail conditions imposed on him and he has a history
of involvement in criminal activities, floating the bail conditions
imposed in the earlier cases. Similarly, in Ext.P1 order, it is further
stated that the antecedents of the detenu reveal a strong
likelihood that he will again violate the bail conditions and engage
in drug peddling activities. It is true that the conditions imposed
by the court while granting bail are not extracted in the impugned
order. But there is no requirement of law that the bail conditions
shall be extracted in the order of detention. But what is required
is that the jurisdictional authority should consider the sufficiency
of bail conditions imposed in the bail order. The same is seen done
by the jurisdictional authority while passing the order, and the
authority entered into a conclusion that those conditions are not
WP(Crl.) No. 1202 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:72190
sufficient to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
in the above regard will fail.
Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
WP(Crl.) No. 1202 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:72190
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1202/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
NO. HOME-SSC2/95/2025 DATED
16.06.2025, ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT,
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
08.04.2024 IN WP (CRL) NO 310/2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
