[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Reshma vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:4116
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 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 35 OF 2026
CRIME NO.1863/2024 OF Vizhinjam Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER:
RESHMA
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O MUHAMMED ADHIL S, ABITHA MANZIL, TC 48/11,
PUTHENPALLI, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
NOW RESIDING AT DAYANANDANAM HOUSE, UCHAKKADA,
KOTTUKKAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695506
BY ADVS.
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
SHRI.VAISHNAV DATH S.
SHRI.ANEESHRAJ R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001., PIN - 682031
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA (HOME DEPARTMENT)
SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L&O)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (L&O),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY POLICE COMMISSIONERATE
BUILDING, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695036
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, VIZHINJAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521
W.P(Crl). No.35 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:4116
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695012
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.35 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:4116
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated
22.05.2025, passed against one Muhammed Adhil S/o. Shailaj Khan
(herein after referred to as '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 wife of the
detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order
dated 28.07.2025, 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 24.02.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
City, the 3rd respondent, seeking initiation of proceedings against the
detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional
authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu
got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for
passing the impugned order of detention. Out of the said cases
considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial
activity is crime No.1863/2024 of Vizhinjam Police Station, alleging
commission of offenses punishable under Sections 22(b), 27A & 29 of the
NDPS Act.
3. We heard Sri. Gokul D. Sudhakaran, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Public
W.P(Crl). No.35 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:4116
Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority
without proper application of mind and without arriving at the requisite
objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the counsel,
there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing
the detention order, and the said delay would certainly snap the live link
between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. On
these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of detention is
liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that
there is no unreasonable delay either in submitting the proposal or in
passing the Ext.P2 detention order after the commission of the last
prejudicial activity. However, some minimal delay is inevitable while
passing a detention order, especially when it is the duty of the authority
to ensure adherence to the natural justice principles while passing such
an order. The learned Public Prosecutor further urged that the detaining
authority passed Ext.P2 order after arriving at the requisite objective as
well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, no interference is warranted in
the impugned order.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and
have perused the records.
W.P(Crl). No.35 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:4116
7. While considering the contention of the petitioner, regarding
the delay that occurred in submitting the proposal for detention and in
passing the order, it cannot be ignored that an order under Section 3(1)
of the PITNDPS Act has a significant impact on the personal as well as
fundamental rights of an individual. So such an order could not be passed
in a casual manner; instead, it can only be passed on credible materials
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. In T. A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala, [1990 SCC Cri
76], the Apex Court held that the question whether the prejudicial
activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of detention is
proximate to the time when the order is made or the live link between the
prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on
the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be
precisely formulated that would be applicable under all circumstances,
and no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down on that behalf. It follows
that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test by merely
counting the number of months between the offending acts and the order
of detention. However, when there is an undue delay between the
prejudicial activities and the passing of the detention order, the court has
to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined
W.P(Crl). No.35 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:4116
such a delay and afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to why
such a delay has occasioned when called upon to answer and further the
court has to investigate whether the causal connection has been broken
in the circumstances of each case.
9. Keeping in mind the above principles, while coming to the facts
in the present case, it can be seen that the case registered against the
detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.1863/2024
of Vizhinjam Police Station, alleging commission of offenses punishable
under Sections 22(b), 27A & 29 of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to
the registration of the last prejudicial activity occurred on 02.12.2024,
and he was arrested on the same day. It was thereafter, on 25.02.2025,
that the detenu was released on bail. The records further reveal that on
24.02.2025, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
City, submitted the proposal to the competent authority for initiation of
proceedings under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. Therefore, it is
decipherable that there is a delay of more than two and a half months in
submitting the proposal after the commission of the last prejudicial
activity. Likewise, the impugned order of detention was passed on
22.05.2025. While considering the delay that occurred in mooting the
proposal, it cannot be undermined that from 02.12.2024, the date of
occurrence of the last prejudicial activity, till 25.02.2025, the detenu was
under judicial custody. It was while the detenu was under judicial custody
that the proposal was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
As the detenu was in jail during that period, there was no basis for any
apprehension regarding the immediate repetition of criminal activities by
W.P(Crl). No.35 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:4116
the detenu. Therefore, we are of the view that the delay that occurred in
mooting the proposal is only negligible.
10. However, from a perusal of the impugned order, it is
gatherable that although the proposal was forwarded on 24.02.2025, the
matter was placed before the screening committee for its opinion by the
Government only on 21.03.2025, that too after around one month of
release of the detenu on bail. The act of the Government in sitting on the
proposal idly from 24.02.2025 till 21.03.2025 is not justifiable. Likewise,
as evident from the impugned order itself, the Government had
forwarded the proposal for the opinion of the screening committee, and
the said committee, in turn, had examined the proposal in detail and
submitted its opinion that it is a fit case for issuing an order of detention
under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act. The said report showing the
opinion of the screening committee was received by the Government on
15.04.2025. Even thereafter, there is a delay of more than one month in
passing the detention order. Notably, no convincing explanation has been
offered by the jurisdictional authority in the impugned order for the long
delay that occurred in passing the detention order, even after the receipt
of the report of the screening committee.
11. If the jurisdictional authority had a bona fide apprehension
regarding the repetition of anti-social activities, it would have acted
swiftly after the receipt of the proposal as well as the screening
committee's report. If the true objective was to prevent the detenu from
engaging in anti-social activities, the authority ought to have acted with
W.P(Crl). No.35 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:4116
greater alacrity in passing the detention order. Therefore, the only
conclusion that can be arrived at is that the live link between the last
prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped.
12. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed, and Ext.P2 order of
detention is set aside. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura,
Thiruvananthapuram, is directed to release the detenu, Sri. Muhammed
Adhil, 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
ANS
W.P(Crl). No.35 of 2026 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:4116
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 35 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 24-02-
2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 3(1)
OF PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN
NARCOTIC DRUG AND PSYCHOTROPIC
SUBSTANCES ACT,1988
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED
22-05-2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
