[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Ajeesha M.T vs State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:8426
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 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 14TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 105 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
AJEESHA M.T.
AGED 29 YEARS
THOTTI VALAPPIL HOUSE, ASUPATHRIPPADI, PURATHOOR,
MUTTANUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676561
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 - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
(HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, DPO ROAD,
UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676505
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
W.P(Crl). No.105 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:9154
BY ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.105 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:9154
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner herein is the wife of one Navas V. T. ('detenu' for
the sake of brevity), and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed
against Ext.P2 order of detention dated 15.12.2025, passed by the 2nd
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS Act for
brevity).
2. The records reveal that on 15.10.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Malappuram, seeking initiation
of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the
jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, three 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.876/2025 of Kondotty Police Station, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Section 22(c), 22(b), 21(a), and 29 of the
NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
W.P(Crl). No.105 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:9154
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P2 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. According to the learned counsel, the
jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order 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 casual manner. The learned counsel further urged
that there occurred an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as
well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay will certainly
snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose
of detention. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that the
jurisdictional authority passed the Ext.P2 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 Public Prosecutor further
submitted that there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the
proposal or in passing Ext.P2 detention order after the last prejudicial
W.P(Crl). No.105 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:9154
activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing a
detention order, especially when it is the duty of the authority to
ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such
an order. Moreover, a reasonable time would be necessary for
collecting the details of the cases in which the detenu is involved, and
minimal delay in mooting the proposal and passing the order is quite
natural and hence justifiable. According to the learned Public
Prosecutor, the detaining authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving
at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and no
interference is warranted.
6. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that it was not properly taking note of the fact that the
detenu is 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, that 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.
W.P(Crl). No.105 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:9154
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.
7. 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 by considering 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 the detenu will
indulge in drug peddling activities in furture. Moreover, it is stated
that the present conditions are not sufficient to curb the criminal
activities of the detenu since he has violated similar bail conditions
more than one time in the past. Therefore, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner in the above regard will fail.
8. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal
W.P(Crl). No.105 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:9154
as well as in passing the detention order, and the said delay will
certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the
purpose of detention. While considering the contention of the
petitioner 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 impact on the personal as well as the fundamental rights of
an individual. Therefore, such an order could not be passed in a casual
manner; instead, it can only be passed on credible materials and upon
arriving at the requisite objective, as well as 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.
9. Keeping in mind the above, 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 29.07.2025, and he was arrested on the same day.
Thereafter, he was released on bail only on 23.10.2025. It was on
15.10.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was
initiated, and finally, the impugned order of detention was passed on
15.12.2025. In short, the proposal for initiation of proceedings under
W.P(Crl). No.105 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:9154
the PITNDPS Act was mooted, while the detenu was under judicial
custody. As the detenu was under judicial custody during that period,
there was no basis for any apprehension regarding the repetition of
criminal activities by him. Therefore, the short delay that occurred in
mooting the proposal is of little consequence. Likewise, the sequence
of the events narrated above clearly indicates that there is no
inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the
detention order. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner, sticking on the delay, is only liable to be rejected, and it
cannot be said that the live link between the last prejudicial activity
and the purpose of detention is snapped.
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
W.P(Crl). No.105 of 2026 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:9154
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 105 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED
15.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
HOME-SSC3/186/2025-HOME DATED
15.12.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23.10.2025 IN B.A. NO.12468/2025 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
