[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Suhara vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:17165
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 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 259 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
SUHARA
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. BASHEER, KARUPPAM HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBIL,
PUNNA.P.O,CHAVAKKAD THRISSUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 680518
BY ADVS.
SRI.NOORJI NOUSHAD
SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL
SHRI. BIJUMON K.K
FYZAL BABU V.K.
SMT.ASHLY SHAJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME(SSC) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
MALAPPURAM, UP HILL,MALAPPURAM. (SPONSORING
AUTHORITY), PIN - 676505
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON & CORRECTIONAL HOME
POOJAPPURA.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
BY ADV.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 26.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.259 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:17165
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against Ext.P1 detention order dated
25.10.2025, passed against one Shamil, 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 mother of the detenu. The said detention order was
confirmed by the Government vide order dated 12.01.2026, and the
detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year, from
the date of detention.
2. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved have
been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P1
detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect
to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.510/2025 of Ponnani Police
Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Heard Smt. Noorji Noushad, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
order impugned by way of this writ petition has been passed on
improper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite
W.P(Crl). No.259 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:17165
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel further
submitted that there is an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal
after the date of the last prejudicial activity, and the said long delay will
certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the
purpose of the detention. On the said premise, the learned counsel
urged that Ext.P1 order warrants interference.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that
there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in
passing the Ext.P1 detention order. According to the learned
Government Pleader, some minimal delay is inevitable while passing an
order, especially when it is the duty of the authority to ensure
adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such an order.
According to him, the authority needs a reasonable time to collect and
verify the details of the cases in which the detenu was involved, and
therefore, the minimum delay in submitting the proposal is quite
natural, and the same is only negligible
6. As already stated, altogether, four cases formed the basis
for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case
registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime
No.510/2025 of Ponnani Police Station, alleging 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 17.04.2025. The
detenu, who is arrayed as the 2nd accused in the said case, was
W.P(Crl). No.259 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:17165
arrested on 13.05.2025. Subsequently, he was released on bail on
17.07.2025. Notably, it was thereafter, on 04.08.2025, that the proposal
for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was forwarded.
Virtually, there is a delay of more than three and a half months in
mooting the proposal from the date of occurrence of the last prejudicial
activity, and there is a delay of three weeks from the date of his release
on bail. Of course, the delay occurred in mooting the proposal after the
release of the detenu on bail cannot be viewed lightly. If the sponsoring
authority had a bona fide apprehension regarding the likelihood of the
detenu engaging in further criminal activities, it would certainly have
acted with greater vigilance and initiated the proposal without delay.
7. The assertion by the learned Government Pleader that
additional time was needed to collect and verify the details of the
crimes before forwarding the proposal lacks credibility. In the case at
hand, only four cases formed the basis for proposing and issuing the
detention order. The details of those cases were readily available and
could have been obtained without delay, given the technological
upgradation attained by the Law Enforcement Authority. Therefore, we
are of the considered view that the delay in mooting the proposal and in
passing the detention order is unreasonable and unjustifiable.
8. If the Superintendent of Police genuinely harboured a bona
fide apprehension regarding the likelihood of the detenu repeating anti-
social activities, he would have acted promptly and with due expedition
W.P(Crl). No.259 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:17165
by submitting the proposal immediately upon being satisfied about the
detenu's involvement in the last prejudicial activity. As already stated,
the fact that there was a delay in initiating the proposal even after the
detenu was released on bail is fatal to the case. Therefore, we are of the
view that the delay in forwarding the proposal will certainly snap the
live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of the
impugned order.
9. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the Ext.P1
order of detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison
and Correctional Home, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, is directed
to release the detenu, Sri. Shamil, 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 and Correctional Home, Poojappura,
Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.259 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:17165
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 259 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER
DATED 25/10/2025
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED NIL,
SENT BY THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
MALAPPURAM TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
04.08.2025 SENT BY THE DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF, MALAPPURAM TO THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBITP4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
26.07.2025 SENT BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NARCOTIC
CELL, MALAPPURAM TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID
VERIFICATION REPORT NO.
576/TDR/NC/MPM/2025 FORWARDED BY THE
SCRUTINIZING COMMITTEE TO THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL
SENT BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PONNANI POLICE STATION TO THE FIRST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED 08.09.2025
EXHIBIT-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
DATED 12/08/2025
EXHIBIT-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID LETTER
DATED 19.01.2026 RECEIVED FROM THE
FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER
DATED 12.01.2026
EXHIBIT-P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
29.12.2025 PREFERRED BY THE DETENU
BEFORE THE ADVISORY BOARD
