JUDGMENT :

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner is the mother of Anantha Krishnan @ Ananthu, ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P2 order of detention dated 01.12.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 14.02.2025, and the petitioner’s son has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Alappuzha, the 3rd respondent, on 07.09.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the petitioner’s son under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether three cases in which the petitioner’s son was involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the impugned order of detention, and the details of the said cases are given below:-

3. The case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity against the detenu is Crime No.243/2024 of Pattanakkad Police Station. The detenu is arrayed as the 3rd accused in the said case. The allegation in the said case is that on 24.03.2024, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 were found possessing and transporting 40.400 kgs of Ganja in a car bearing registration No.AP-40/AE 6150. It is further alleged that the contraband seized in this case was purchased by the 3rd accused from the 5th accused, and it was the 3rd accused, the detenu who financed the purchase of the contraband by transferring an amount of Rs.81,000/- from the bank account of his wife to the bank account suggested by the 5th accused through Google pay. There is a further allegation that the vehicle in which the contraband was seized was booked by the 3rd accused through the Zoomcar application.

4. We heard Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Ext.P2 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the detention order was passed while the detenu is in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the jurisdictional authority who passed the impugned order should have explained on the basis of what material it came into a conclusion that there is possibility of the detenu being released on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India And Another , [1991 (1) SCC 128] the learned counsel contended that an order of detention can be validly passed against a person who is already in judicial custody in connection with another case only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in Kamarunissa’s case (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

6. Per contra, Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader, submitted that even in cases wherein the person is in judicial custody, a detention order can validly be passed if the satisfaction of the authority is properly adverted to in the order. According to the counsel, it was after being fully aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, the present order of detention was passed. Moreover, the learned Government Pleader would su