[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Alfiya.A vs State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:31997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 566 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
ALFIYA.A, AGED 21 YEARS
W/O.MUHAMMAD RAFI, SHEEJA MANZIL, PUNNAKULAM
MURI, ADINADU, KOLLAM, PIN - 690542
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SHRI.S.ABHILASH
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
SMT.SAFNA P.S.
SMT. MARIYA JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 SCREENING COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR SCRUTINIZING
PROPOSALS UNDER PITNDPS ACT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF THE LAW
SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695010
5 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
W.P.(Crl.) No.566 of 2026 :2:
2026:KER:31997
6 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691001
7 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM,
PIN - 690518
8 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691601
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS. G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 08.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(Crl.) No.566 of 2026 :3:
2026:KER:31997
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
13.01.2026 passed against one Muhammed Rafi (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 wife of the detenu. The said order stands
confirmed by the Government vide order dated 19.03.2026, 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 on 12.11.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Kollam city, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the
jurisdictional authority. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu got
involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the
detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the
last prejudicial activity is crime No.2171/2025 of Karunagappally Police
Station, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of
the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government
Pleader.
W.P.(Crl.) No.566 of 2026 :4:
2026:KER:31997
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.
P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and has been passed without proper application
of mind. According to the learned counsel, the jurisdictional authority issued
the impugned order without taking into account the fact that the detenu had
been released on bail in the case registered in respect of the last prejudicial
activity, and that the conditions imposed while granting bail were, by
themselves, sufficient to deter the detenu from engaging in further criminal
activities. It is contended that the adequacy and effectiveness of the bail
conditions were not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and
that the impugned order was passed in a casual and mechanical manner. It is
further contended that the detenu has been falsely implicated in the cases
registered against him and that there are no materials to substantiate his
alleged involvement in those cases. The learned counsel also argues that the
jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact that proceedings had
already been initiated against the detenu under Section 126 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which would have been sufficient to
prevent him from engaging in further drug trafficking activities. On these
premises, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted
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
W.P.(Crl.) No.566 of 2026 :5:
2026:KER:31997
that the detention order 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 recurrent involvement of the
detenu in narcotic peddling activities. As already stated, two cases in which
the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order.
Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is Crime No.2171/2025 of Karunagappally Police Station, alleging
commission of the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act.
The detenu was caught red-handed with the contraband in the said case on
31.08.2025, and he was arrested on the same day. As evident from the
records, he was granted bail in the said case only on 28.10.2025. It was on
12.11.2025, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS
Act was forwarded by the sponsoring authority. Subsequently, on 13.01.2026,
the detention order was passed.
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. 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
W.P.(Crl.) No.566 of 2026 :6:
2026:KER:31997
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 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 present bail
conditions are not sufficient to prevent the detenu from involving in further
crimes, since he has violated similar conditions in the past. Similarly, in
Ext.P1 order, it is further stated that from his past criminal activities, it is
evident that even if he is released on bail with conditions, he is likely to violate
those conditions, and there is a high propensity that he will indulge in drug
trafficking activities in the future. Therefore, the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner in the above regard will fail.
9. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the detenu is totally innocent in the cases registered against
W.P.(Crl.) No.566 of 2026 :7:
2026:KER:31997
him. According to the counsel, as the detenu is totally innocent in those
cases, the said cases ought not have been considered by the jurisdictional
authority for arriving at its objective as well as subjective satisfaction. While
considering the said contention, it is pertinent to note that in both cases
registered against the detenu, very serious allegations are attributed to him.
The jurisdictional authority passed the detention order after being satisfied
that the detenu had active involvement in the said cases. Moreover, there is
no requirement in law that a case should culminate in a conviction for treating
the same as a qualified case for the purpose of preventive detention.
Moreover, in the first case registered against the detenu, after a full-fledged
investigation, a final report has already been filed against the detenu.
Significantly, the jurisdiction exercised under the PITNDPS Act is a
jurisdiction of suspicion. Likewise, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
jurisdictional authority, being based on relevant materials, cannot be lightly
interfered with. We are therefore of the considered view that the satisfaction
of the jurisdictional authority regarding the involvement of the detenu in the
cases registered against him cannot be faulted with.
10. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority failed to take into account the
fact that already proceedings under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 have been initiated against the detenu and
the said proceedings would have been sufficient to prevent the detenu from
being involved in further criminal activities. While considering the said
contention, first of all, it is to be noted that proceedings under Section 126 of
the BNSS, and action under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act operate in
different spheres. Under Section 126 of the BNSS, a person is only called to
W.P.(Crl.) No.566 of 2026 :8:
2026:KER:31997
furnish security for keeping peace. On the other hand, under Section 3(1) of
the PITNDPS Act, a person involved in drug trafficking is detained so as to
prevent him from repeating such activities. Therefore, action under the
PITNDPS Act is more effective and operates in a totally different sphere.
Moreover, in the present case, there is nothing to show that the detenu had
executed any bond for keeping good behaviour so far. Obviously, it is for the
detaining authority to decide whether action under Section 3(1) of the
PITNDPS Act is necessary against a person who is facing proceedings under
Section 126 of BNSS. Notably, from the impugned order, it is evident that the
jurisdictional authority was fully cognizant of the fact that proceedings under
Section 126 of the BNSS were pending. Therefore, the jurisdictional authority
is fully justified in passing a detention order notwithstanding the pendency of
proceedings under Section 126 of BNSS against the detenu.
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
vdv
W.P.(Crl.) No.566 of 2026 :9:
2026:KER:31997
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 566 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION
DATED 13.1.2026 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)
NO.1078/2026/HOME DATED 19.3.2026 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH DETAILS OF
THE CRIME AND GROUND FOR THE DETENTION
DATED 12.11.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INITIAL PROPOSAL
SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT THROUGH
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 10.11.2025
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 24.12.2025
