[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abdul Khader T.M vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:11423
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 165 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ABDUL KHADER T.M
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.MAKKAR, THEKKEVADAYATH HOUSE,
CHEMBARATHUKUNNU, PONJASSERY, VENGOLA VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 683547
BY ADVS.
SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
SRI.VIVEK VENUGOPAL
SRI.BABU JOSE
SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT
SHRI.ATHUL POULOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ERNAKULAM RURAL, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, SH 16,
OPPOSITE POWER, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN -
683101
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.165 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:11423
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
31.12.2025 passed against one Ajmal ('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 father of the detenu.
2. The records reveal that, on 17.10.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, seeking
initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act
before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, four cases in which the
detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional
authority for passing the order of detention. Out of the said cases, the
case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.524/2025 of Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, alleging the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 27A, 29 r/w
8(c) of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public
Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
W.P(Crl). No.165 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:11423
the 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.
5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that
there is no delay in passing the Ext.P1 detention order. The learned
Public Prosecutor 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 Public Prosecutor further urged that the
order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after
W.P(Crl). No.165 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:11423
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 criminal activities. As already stated, four
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.524/2025 of
Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, alleging the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 22(b), 27A, 29 r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The
incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on
12.07.2025, and the detenu was caught red-handed with the
contraband on the same day itself. As evident from the records, he was
granted bail in the said case on 10.11.2025. It was on 17.10.2025 that
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 three months in mooting the proposal.
However, while considering the said delay, it cannot be ignored that till
10.11.2025, the detenu was under judicial custody. Since the detenu
was in jail till 10.11.2025, obviously, there was no basis for any
apprehension regarding the imminent repetition of criminal activities
by him. Moreover, the proposal was forwarded on 17.10.2025, i.e.,
much before the release of detenu from jail. Therefore, the short delay
that occurred in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the
W.P(Crl). No.165 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:11423
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, 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.
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
W.P(Crl). No.165 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:11423
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 being involved in further crimes, since he has violated
similar conditions in the past. Similarly, in Ext.P1 order, it is further
stated that from the detenu's past criminal activities, it is evident that
even if he is released on bail with conditions, he may likely to violate
those conditions and there is a high propensity that he will indulge in
drug peddling activities in the future. Moreover, the conditions imposed
by the court while granting bail are also extracted in the impugned
order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed under Section
3(1) of the PITNDPS Act is vitiated in any manner.
In the result, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner
has not made out any ground 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.165 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:11423
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 165 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED
31.12.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
