[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Akash C.Aji vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:15315
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 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 237 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
AKASH C.AJI
AGED 21 YEARS
CHUNKATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAM P.O., THIRUVARPPU
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
AMBALATHARAYIL HOUSE, VALALINCHODU BHAGOM,
KUMARANALLOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686016
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
KOTTAYAM, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, COLLECTORATE
P.O., KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
W.P(Crl). No.237 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:15315
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 19.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.237 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:15315
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
24.11.2025 passed against one Akshay C. Aji (herein after referred to as
the '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 brother of the detenu.
2. As evident from the records, it was on the basis of a proposal
dated 16.08.2025, forwarded by the District Police Chief, Kottayam, that
the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent, initiated proceedings
against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. Algother four
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.893/2025 of Kottayam West Police Station, alleging commission
of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)B 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 Government
Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P2 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without
W.P(Crl). No.237 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:15315
proper application of mind. The learned counsel further submitted that
there was 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. It
was further submitted that while passing Ext.P2 order, the jurisdictional
authority failed to take note of the fact that there was a time gap of
around three years between the last prejudicial activity and the last but
one case registered against the detenu, and the said time gap itself
shows that the detenu is not a person having the propensity to be
involved in criminal activities repeatedly. On these premises, it was
urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
Ext.P2 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, there is no delay either in mooting
the proposal or in passing the detention order. The learned Government
Pleader further urged that the impugned order requires no interference
as the same was passed after proper application of mind and upon
arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.
6. The records reveal that the detention order was passed by the
jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of
the detenu in narcotic drug peddling cases. As already stated, four cases
W.P(Crl). No.237 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:15315
in which the detenu got involved had formed the basis for passing the
detention order. One of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal
as well as in passing the detention order. According to the learned
counsel, the said delay will certainly snap the livelink between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.
7. 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 bearing on the
personal as well as the fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore,
such an order could not be passed in a mechanical manner; instead, it
can only be passed on credible materials and after arriving at the
requisite objective and 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.
8. Having regard to 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 09.07.2025. In the said case, the detenu was caught red-
W.P(Crl). No.237 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:15315
handed with the contraband on the same day. Thereafter, on 30.08.2025,
he got bail in the said case. It was on 16.08.2025, while he was under
judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the
PITNDPS Act was initiated. Thereafter, the detention order was passed
on 24.11.2025.
9. The sequence of events narrated above clearly shows that
there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in
passing the impugned order of detention. Moreover, some minimum time
is required to collect the details of the cases in which the detenu got
involved and for verification of the records. Likewise, while considering
the delay that occurred in mooting the proposal, it cannot be ignored
that the detenu was under judicial custody till 30.08.2025. As the detenu
was in jail, there was no basis for apprehension regarding the imminent
repetition of criminal activities by him. Notably, the proposal was
forwarded prior to the release of the detenu on bail. Therefore, the short
delay that occurred in mooting the proposal is justifiable. In passing the
impugned order also there is no unreasonable delay. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, sticking to the delay,
is only liable to be discarded.
10. We are not unmindful of the fact that although the detenu
was released on bail on 30.08.2025, the Government had placed the
matter for the opinion of the screening committee constituted under the
W.P(Crl). No.237 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:15315
Chairmanship of the Law Secretary only on 25.10.2025. Therefore, as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a
delay of 55 days in placing the matter before the screening committee
after the release of the detenu on bail. However, while considering the
said delay, it cannot be ignored that the detenu was released on bail in
the last case registered against him on stringent condition and one of the
conditions imposed was that he shall appear before the investigating
officer till the filing of the final report before the court. The final report
was submitted in this case on 11.09.2025. Virtually, the detenu was
under the monitoring of the investigating officer till 11.09.2025. As such
a condition existed till 11.09.2025, the possibility of repeating criminal
activities was less. Likewise, the matter was placed before the screening
committee without much delay from the date of submission of the final
report. Therefore, the delay that occurred in placing the matter before
the screening committee by the Government is also justifiable. Moreover,
from a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the jurisdictional
authority had duly considered the sufficiency of the bail conditions
imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail. Likewise, in the
impugned order, it is recorded that the present bail conditions are not
sufficient to curb his narcotic criminal activities, since he has violated
similar conditions in the past.
11. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact
W.P(Crl). No.237 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:15315
that there was a time gap of around three years between the last
prejudicial activity and the last but one case registered against the
detenu, and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the
detaining authority is vitiated. The last prejudicial activity was
committed by the detenu on 09.07.2025, whereas the date of occurrence
of the last but one case registered against him (crime No. 1961/2022) is
on 18.10.2022. Thus, there is indeed a gap of about three years between
the two incidents. However, it cannot be overlooked that the involvement
of a person, even in a single case registered under the NDPS Act, is
sufficient to pass an order of detention under the PITNDPS Act.
Therefore, the time gap between the two cases highlighted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is of little consequence in the context
of the impugned order.
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.237 of 2026 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:15315
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 237 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED
16.08.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.3 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO.
HOME-SSC2/157/2025-HOME DATED 24.11.2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
