[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Reji P.A vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:5637
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 61 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
REJI P.A
AGED 59 YEARS
PARENALPATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAM PO, THIRUVARPU
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686020
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 - 695001
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, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
CENTRAL PRISON, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695012
BY ADV.
K.A.ANAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 23.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(Crl). No.61 of 2026 :: 2 ::
2026:KER:5637
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner herein is the father of one Jerin P. R. ('detenu' for
the sake of brevity), and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed
against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 06.11.2025, passed by the 2nd
respondent under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS Act for brevity).
date of detention.
2. The records reveal that on 11.07.2025, a proposal was
submitted by the District Police Chief, Kottayam, seeking initiation of
proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the
jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, six cases in
which the detenu got involved have been considered by the
jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said
cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last
prejudicial activity is crime No.608/2025 of the Kumarakam Police
Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 22(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 Public
Prosecutor.
W.P(Crl). No.61 of 2026 :: 3 ::
2026:KER:5637
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper
application of mind. According to the learned counsel, the jurisdictional
authority passed the impugned 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 casual manner. It is further contended that there is a delay of
thirteen days in executing the detention order from the date of its
issuance, and the said delay is not justifiable. The learned counsel
further submitted that although the proposal was forwarded by the
sponsoring authority to the Government on 11.07.2025, the same was
placed before the Screening Committee only on 26.09.2025, and that
such delay in processing the proposal has the effect of severing the live
and proximate link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose
of detention. On these premises, the learned counsel contended that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted 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
W.P(Crl). No.61 of 2026 :: 4 ::
2026:KER:5637
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 Public Prosecutor further
submitted that after the commission of the last prejudicial activity,
without any unreasonable delay, the order was executed, and hence, the
contention of the petitioner that there is inordinate delay in executing
the order cannot be sustained. Likewise, the learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that some minimum delay on the part of the Government is
natural to occur in submitting the proposal before the screening
committee due to administrative reasons and the said delay is liable to
be discarded. The learned Public Prosecutor 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 criminal activities. As already stated, six 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.608/2025 of the Kumarakam Police
Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 22(b)
and 29 of the NDPS Act. The detenu was caught red-handed with the
contraband in the said case on 08.06.2025. As evident from the records,
W.P(Crl). No.61 of 2026 :: 5 ::
2026:KER:5637
he was granted bail in the said case on 08.08.2025. It was on
11.07.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the
proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was
forwarded by the sponsoring authority. Subsequently, on 29.08.2025
and on 19.08.2025, the sponsoring authority forwarded additional
reports. Likewise, after receipt of the proposal, the Government had
placed the proposal for the opinion of the screening committee on
26.09.2025. The screening committee, after verifying the records,
forwarded a report to the Government and opined that this is a fit case
to pass an order of detention against the detenu under Section 3(1) of
the PITNDPS Act. The said report was received by the Government on
10.10.2025. Subsequently, on 06.11.2025, Ext.P1 detention order was
passed. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly reveals that
there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing Ext.P1
detention order.
7. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that it was not properly taking note of the fact that
the detenu is 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, 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
W.P(Crl). No.61 of 2026 :: 6 ::
2026:KER:5637
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 the bail conditions is also seen properly considered by the
jurisdictional authority. In the impugned order, it is specifically
mentioned that by considering his criminal antecedents, it is evident
that the bail conditions and other preventive measures are not
sufficient to curb his narcotic criminal activities, since he has violated
similar conditions and restriction orders in the past. Therefore, the
W.P(Crl). No.61 of 2026 :: 7 ::
2026:KER:5637
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the above regard
will fail.
9. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that there is a delay of thirteen days in executing the
detention order from the date of its issuance and that the said delay is
not justifiable. While considering this contention, it is to be noted that
from the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor, it is
gatherable that when Ext.P1 detention order was passed, the detenu
was absconding. However, on 19.11.2025, i.e., after thirteen days from
the date of the order, the accused was traced out, and the order was
executed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any
unreasonable delay in executing the order.
10. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that although the proposal was forwarded by the
sponsoring authority to the Government on 11.07.2025, the same was
placed before the Screening Committee only on 26.09.2025, and that
such delay in processing the proposal had the effect of severing the live
and proximate link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose
of detention.
11. While considering the said contention, it is to be noted that,
as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
W.P(Crl). No.61 of 2026 :: 8 ::
2026:KER:5637
proposal dated 11.07.2025 was indeed placed by the Government
before the Screening Committee on 26.09.2025. Evidently, there was a
short delay in placing the proposal before the Screening Committee.
However, it cannot be overlooked that, in the interregnum, two
additional reports were submitted by the sponsoring authority, dated
19.08.2025 and 29.08.2025, respectively. Therefore, the sequence of
events reveals that the delay in placing the proposal before the
Screening Committee stands reasonably explained and justified.
Moreover, a short delay occurring on account of administrative reasons
in placing the matter before the Screening Committee or the Advisory
Board is natural and, by itself, is not fatal to the detention proceedings.
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.61 of 2026 :: 9 ::
2026:KER:5637
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 61 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER NO. HOME-
SSC1/130/2025-HOME DATED 06.11.2025 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
