IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JOBIN SEBASTIAN
Aboobacker Sidhique S/o. Beeran Koya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The petitioner is the father of Sanjith Ali, ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 31.01.2025 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 21.04.2025, and the detenu was 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 Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, the 5th respondent, on 20.11.2024, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, two cases in which the detenu 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:-
| Sl. No. | Crime No. | Police Station | Crime Date | Offences involved under Sections | Present status of cas |
A detention order under the PITNDPS Act is invalid if the authority fails to demonstrate a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail while in judicial custody.
A detention order under the PITNDPS Act can be validly issued while the detenu is in judicial custody, provided the authority demonstrates awareness of this and substantiates the likelihood of bail a....
Preventive detention may lawfully proceed under specific conditions despite a detenu's judicial custody; it requires proof of potential bail release and risk of recurring criminal conduct.
A detention order under preventive detention laws requires clear evidence of a detenu's potential release on bail and risk of re-offending, which must be stated in the order itself to be valid.
Preventive detention may be valid for individuals in judicial custody if the authority demonstrates a real risk of bail release leading to further illicit activities.
A detention order under the PITNDPS Act is invalid if it lacks clear reasoning regarding the possibility of bail for a detenu already in judicial custody.
A detention order under the PITNDPS Act can be valid if authorities demonstrate imminent likelihood of the detenu's release on bail and the risk of future criminal activity.
A detention order under the PITNDPS Act can be validly passed even if the detenu is in judicial custody, provided the authority demonstrates a real possibility of bail based on reliable materials.
A detention order under preventive laws is valid for an individual in custody if there is a justified belief of imminent bail release and potential reoffending.
Preventive detention is valid even for individuals in judicial custody if the authority satisfies the triple test regarding bail likelihood and continuing criminal activity, despite delays not severi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.