Kerala High Court
Jithin Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:72033
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. 1220 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
JITHIN SHAJI
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O SHAJI, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE EZHUVAMBADAM,
KURUMBILANGOTTU, POTHUKALLU PATHAR.P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673507
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.BINU
SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695010
3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOZHIKODE CITY, CITY POLICE OFFICE KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673001
4 SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695012
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.1220 of 2025 :: 2 ::
2025:KER:72033
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention
dated 12.11.2024 passed against one Shine Shaji, S/o Shaji (herein
after referred to as the '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 brother of the detenu. After
considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands
confirmed by the Government vide order dated 27.01.2025, and the
detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year
with effect from the date of detention.
2. As evident from the records, it was on the basis of a
proposal dated 16.08.2024, forwarded by the Deputy Inspector
General and Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, the
jurisdictional authority, the 1st respondent, initiated proceedings
against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act.
Algother four 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, the case registered with respect to
the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.237/2024 of Vellayil
Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under
WP(Crl.) No.1220 of 2025 :: 3 ::
2025:KER:72033
Sections 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The allegation in the
said case is that on 19.05.2024, the detenu was found keeping and
possessing 778.16 gms of Methaphetamine and 1.288 gms of LSD
Stamps for sale inside a house bearing building No.37/175 of
Kozhikode Corporation in contravention of the provisions contained
under the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. P.S.Binu, 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 was passed on improper consideration of facts and
without proper application of mind. The learned counsel further
submitted that there was an unreasonable delay in mooting the
proposal as well as in passing the impugned order of detention,
and the said delay will certainly snap the livelink between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. It was further
submitted that while passing Ext.P1 order, the jurisdictional
authority failed to take note of the fact that there was a time gap of
around three years between the last prejudicial activity and the
last but one case registered against the detenu, and the said time
gap itself shows that the detenu is not a person having the
propensity to be involved in criminal activities repeatedly. On these
premises, it was urged that the impugned order of detention is
WP(Crl.) No.1220 of 2025 :: 4 ::
2025:KER:72033
liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that Ext.P1 order was passed upon proper application of mind and
upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, there is no
delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the impugned
order of detention. The learned Government Pleader further urged
that the impugned order requires no interference as the same was
passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the
requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.
6. The records reveal that the impugned order of detention
was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the
recurrent involvement of the detenu in narcotic drug peddling
cases. As already stated, four cases in which the detenu got
involved had formed the basis for passing the detention order. One
of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as
in passing the detention order. According to the learned counsel,
the said delay will certainly snap the livelink between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.
7. While considering the contention of the petitioner
WP(Crl.) No.1220 of 2025 :: 5 ::
2025:KER:72033
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 bearing on the personal as well as the fundamental
rights of an individual. Therefore, such an order could not be
passed in a mechanical 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.
8. In T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala [(1989) 4
SCC 741], the Apex Court, while dealing with an order under
KAA(P) Act 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
WP(Crl.) No.1220 of 2025 :: 6 ::
2025:KER:72033
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.
9. 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 occurred on 19.05.2024.
From the records, it is evident that after the commission of the said
crime, the detenu absconded, and he was subsequently arrested
only on 16.06.2024, and he has been in custody since then. It was
on 16.08.2024, while he was under judicial custody, that the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was
initiated. Thereafter, the impugned order of detention was passed
on 12.11.2024.
10. The sequence of events narrated above clearly shows
that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal
WP(Crl.) No.1220 of 2025 :: 7 ::
2025:KER:72033
or in passing the impugned order of detention. Moreover, some
minimum time is required to collect the details of the cases in
which the detenu got involved and for verification of the records.
Likewise, while considering the delay that occurred in mooting the
proposal, it cannot be ignored that after the commission of the last
prejudicial activity, the detenu absconded, and he was arrested
only on 16.06.2024. He has been under judicial custody since then.
As the detenu was in jail, there was no basis for apprehension
regarding the imminent repetition of criminal activities by him.
Therefore, the short delay that 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.
11. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority failed to take note
of the fact that there was a time gap of around three years between
the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case registered
against the detenu, and therefore, the subjective satisfaction
arrived on by the detaining authority is vitiated. It is true that the
last prejudicial activity was committed by the detenu on
19.05.2024, whereas the date of occurrence of the last but one case
registered against him (crime No. 14/2021) is on 31.08.2021.
WP(Crl.) No.1220 of 2025 :: 8 ::
2025:KER:72033
Thus, there is indeed a gap of about three years between the two
incidents. However, it cannot be overlooked that the involvement of
a person, even in a single case registered under the NDPS Act, is
sufficient to pass an order of detention under the PITNDPS Act.
Therefore, the time gap between the two cases highlighted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is of little consequence in the
context of the impugned order.
In view of the discussion above, we hold that the petitioner
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.1220 of 2025 :: 9 ::
2025:KER:72033
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1220/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION
NO. HOME-SSC1/81/2024-HOME DATED
12.11.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF DETENTION
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 16.08.2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 31.08.2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
SCREENING COMMITTEE FURNISHED TO THE
DETENU DATED 30.09.2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O (RT)
NO.284/2025/HOME DATED 27.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
