[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Irshad vs State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:31272
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 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 535 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED IRSHAD, AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.MOIDEEN A.M, ATHIMANNIL HOUSE, PATTARKULAM, NARUKARA
P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676122
BY ADV SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
(HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
DPO ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
07.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.)No.535 of 2026 :2:
2026:KER:31272
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
30.12.2025, passed against one Muhammed Anees ('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 the brother of the detenu.
2. The records reveal that, it was after considering the recurrent
involvement of the detenu in criminal activities, a proposal was submitted
by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, on 15.10.2025, 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
detaining authority for passing the impugned order of detention. Out of the
said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is
crime No.57/2025 of Malappuram Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic
Special Squad, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section
22(c) of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. Vivek Venugopal, 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 the
impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on
improper consideration of facts. According to the counsel, it was while the
W.P.(Crl.)No.535 of 2026 :3:
2026:KER:31272
detenu was in jail in connection with the crime No.922/2025 of Mannarkad
Police Station, that the impugned order of detention was passed. However,
the jurisdictional authority was totally unaware of the said fact and passed
the impugned order under the assumption that the detenu was on bail.
According to the learned counsel, that itself shows total non-application of
mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority, and the same would
certainly vitiate the impugned order. The learned counsel further
submitted that as the detenu was in judicial custody in the case registered
by the Mannarkad Police, it was incumbent upon the detaining authority to
consider whether there would be any possibility of the detenu being
released on bail in that case, and if so released, whether he would be
involved in criminal activities further. According to the learned counsel,
such considerations are not made in this case by the jurisdictional authority
while passing the impugned order, as it was under a wrong impression that
the detenu was on bail.
5. Per contra, Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader,
submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed after proper application
of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective
satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, all the procedural
safeguards to be complied with before and after passing the impugned
order are scrupulously complied with, and hence, the impugned order
requires no interference.
6. Before considering the rival contentions taken, it is to be noted
that out of the five cases considered by the jurisdictional authority to pass
Ext.P1 order, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity
W.P.(Crl.)No.535 of 2026 :4:
2026:KER:31272
is crime No.57/2025 of Malappuram Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic
Special Squad, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section
22(c) of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said
case occurred on 13.08.2025. He was arrested in the said case on the same
day, and later he was granted bail on 04.12.2025. However, the detenu was
not actually released from jail as his formal arrest was recorded in another
case on 01.11.2025, which was registered as crime No.922/2025 of
Mannarkad Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under
Section 22(b) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act, and as he was in remand in that case.
7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that the
jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order under the assumption that the
detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity and he
was released from jail. In other words, the jurisdictional authority was
totally non-cognizant of the fact that the detenu was under judicial custody
in connection with the case registered at Mannarkkad Police Station.
Therefore, non-application of mind on the part of the jurisdictional authority
is evident in this case. As the detenu was in judicial custody while passing
the impugned order of detention in connection with the case registered by
Mannarkad Police, it was incumbent upon the jurisdictional authority to
consider the possibility of the detenu being released on bail in that case,
and if so released, the possibility of his being engaged in criminal activities
further. But the same is not seen done in this case. Therefore, we have no
hesitation in holding that there is non-application of mind on the part of the
jurisdictional authority, and hence, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by
the said authority is also vitiated.
W.P.(Crl.)No.535 of 2026 :5:
2026:KER:31272
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P1 order of
detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, is
directed to release the detenu, Sri. Muhammed Anees, forthwith, 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, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
W.P.(Crl.)No.535 of 2026 :6:
2026:KER:31272
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 535 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED
30.12.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
