[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sophia Shaji vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:16090
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 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 14 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SOPHIA SHAJI, AGED 44 YEARS
W/O SHAJI P C, PULICKAL HOUSE, VALAPPU,
ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682508
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BIMAL PRASAD
SMT.ANNIE EDNA ARAKKEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF
SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA HOME (SSC) DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & STATE POLICE
CHIEF, KERALA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
4 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW &
ORDER), OFFICE OF THE ADGP (LAW & ORDER),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
5 THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL & COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE, POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682011
W.P(Crl.) No.14 of 2026 ::2:: 2026:KER:16090
6 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER &
TRAFFIC), POLICE COMMISSIONERATE, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
7 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682018
8 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
9 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADV SMT.ALKA WARRIAR, CGC
ADV.SRI.K.A.ANAS - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl.) No.14 of 2026 ::3:: 2026:KER:16090
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
14.08.2025 passed against one Shaji P. C. @ Mayakkam Shaji ('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 wife of the detenu. The said order
stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 17.11.2025, 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 14.05.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, 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 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.727/2025 of Aluva Police Station,
alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and
29 of the NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. Bimal Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
W.P(Crl.) No.14 of 2026 ::4:: 2026:KER:16090
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Ext.P6 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 detention order, 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 detention 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
mechanical manner. The learned counsel further submitted that, though
the impugned order was passed on 14.08.2025, the same was executed
only on 08.09.2025. According to the counsel, the said delay in executing
the order is unjustifiable and will breach the statutory provision regarding
the execution of such an order. On these premises, the learned counsel
submitted that the detention order is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that
there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the Ext.P6
detention order. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that
the jurisdictional authority passed the Ext.P6 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
W.P(Crl.) No.14 of 2026 ::5:: 2026:KER:16090
involved in criminal activities. The learned Government Pleader further
urged that the order of detention 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 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.727/2025 of Aluva 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 30.03.2025, 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 05.07.2025. It was on 14.05.2025 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 around one and a half months in mooting the proposal
from the date of the last prejudicial activity. However, while considering
the said delay, it cannot be ignored that till 07.07.2025, the detenu was
under judicial custody. Since the detenu was in jail till 07.07.2025,
obviously, there was no basis for any apprehension regarding the imminent
repetition of criminal activities by him. Moreover, the proposal was
forwarded on 14.05.2025, i.e., while the detenu was under judicial custody.
Therefore, the delay that occurred in mooting the proposal as well as in
W.P(Crl.) No.14 of 2026 ::6:: 2026:KER:16090
passing the 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
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
W.P(Crl.) No.14 of 2026 ::7:: 2026:KER:16090
the bail conditions is also seen properly considered by the jurisdictional
authority. In the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned that the bail
conditions and other preventive measures are not sufficient to crub
detenu's drug peddling activities, as similar bail conditions have been
violated by him in the past. Similarly, in Ext.P6 order, it is further stated
that from the detenu's past criminal activities, it is evident that 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 peddling activities in
the future. Moreover, the conditions imposed by the court while granting
bail are also extracted in the impugned order. Therefore, the contention of
the petitioner that the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not considered
by the jurisdictional authority cannot be sustained.
9. From a perusal of the records, it is evident that the detention
order, though passed on 14.08.2025, was executed only on 08.09.2025.
Thus, there is a delay of approximately one month in the execution of the
impugned order. While examining the said delay, it is relevant to note that
in the last case registered against the detenu, he was granted bail on
05.07.2025 subject to certain stringent conditions. One of the conditions
required him to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation
between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday for a period of three
months. There is absolutely no convincing material on record to show that
the detenu violated any of the said conditions. Furthermore, had the
detenu failed to comply with the condition requiring his appearance before
the Investigating Officer, it was always open to the Investigating Officer to
move an application for cancellation of bail. Admittedly, no such application
has been filed. The only reasonable inference, therefore, is that the detenu
W.P(Crl.) No.14 of 2026 ::8:: 2026:KER:16090
was scrupulously complying with the bail conditions and was available
within the local jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the delay in executing
the detention order remains unexplained and unjustified. Consequently, the
submission of the learned Government Pleader that the detenu had
absconded after the passing of the detention order, and that such
abscondence occasioned the delay in its execution, cannot be accepted.
The delayed execution of the impugned order is fatal, particularly when no
convincing explanation whatsoever has been assigned for the said delay.
When there is no special reason that justifies the delayed execution, the
same is a ground to interfere with the impugned order.
10. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Ext.P6
detention order is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu,
Sri. Shaji P. C. @ Mayakkam Shaji, forthwith, if his detention is not
required in connection with any other case.
The Registry is directed to communicate the order to the
Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram,
forthwith.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
W.P(Crl.) No.14 of 2026 ::9:: 2026:KER:16090
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 14 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT
NO.734/TD/2025/CE DATED 13.05.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL
NO.215/TD/2025/NC DATED 14.05.2025 SENT
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.86/CAMP/2025/EC DATED 14.05.2025
SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D-
7138/2025/LO DATED 22.05.2025 SENT BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D4-
197734/2023/PHQ DATED 26.05.2025 SENT
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION
NO.HOME-SSC3/32/2025-HOME DATED
14.8.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT)
NO.3956/2025/HOME DATED 17.11.2025
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
