[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Zulaikha C.H vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:13002
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 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 23RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 202 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ZULAIKHA C.H
AGED 51 YEARS
NALAMPADY COTTAGE, NELLIKKATTA, NEKRAJE VILLAGE,
KASARGOD DISTRICT,, PIN - 671543
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 - 682031
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KASARGOD, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PARAKATTA, VIDYA NAGAR-ULIYATHADKA ROAD, KUDLU,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671124
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
W.P(Crl). No.202 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:13002
ADV. SRI.K.A.ANAS, G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 12.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.202 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:13002
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
18.10.2025 passed against one Muhammad Asif P. A. ('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. The said
order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated
13.01.2026, 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 17.06.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the
jurisdictional authority. Altogether, fifteen 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.360/2025 of
Badiadka Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
W.P(Crl). No.202 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:13002
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. The learned counsel 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 the impugned
order was mechanically passed. On the said premise, the learned
counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader 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 Government
Pleader further urged 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.
W.P(Crl). No.202 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:13002
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, fifteen
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.360/2025 of Badiadka Police
Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections
22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration
of the said case occurred on 03.05.2025, 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 27.09.2025. It was
on 17.06.2025 that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
PITNDPS Act was forwarded by the sponsoring authority.
7. As evident from the record, on receipt of the proposal, the
Government had placed the matter before the screening committee
constituted under the chairmanship of the Law Secretary. The
screening committee, in turn, had considered the matter in detail and
submitted a report that this is a fit case to pass a detention order. The
said report was received by the Government on 09.09.2025.
Subsequently, it was on 18.10.2025, the detention order was passed.
The sequence of the events narrated above clearly reveals that there is
no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the
detention order.
W.P(Crl). No.202 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:13002
8. 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 detention order. While
considering the contention of the counsel for the petitioner in the above
regard, it is to be noted that no law 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.
9. 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
W.P(Crl). No.202 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:13002
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 stated that the
detenu has blatantly violated the stringent bail conditions imposed by
the courts and is involved in cases one after another. Moreover, it is
stated that normal preventive measures and the bail conditions are not
sufficient to curb the detenu's narcotic criminal activities. Likewise, in
Ext.P1 order the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail
are also extracted. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed
under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act is vitiated in any manner.
Resultantly, 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.202 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:13002
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 202 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
HOME-SSC2/141/2025-HOME DATED
18.10.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2025
IN CRL.M.C.NO.1517/2025 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF SESSIONS, KASARGOD
