Preventive detention requires substantial evidence of imminent release on bail; mere assertions are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

Under challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P2 order issued 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 the sake of brevity). By the impugned order, Mr. Jeevansha, the son of the petitioner, was ordered to be detained. The said order was confirmed by the Government by Ext.P3 order dated 26.03.2025, and the detenu was ordered to be detained for one year.

2. A perusal of Ext.P1 proposal and Ext.P2 order of detention, would reveal that it is on account of the involvement of the detenu in two cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for the sake of brevity), that proceeding under the PITNDPS Act was initiated. The details of the crimes in which the detenu got involved are as under:

a) Crime No. 476 of 2024 of Chavara Police Station registered under Section 20(b)(ii)A & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

b) Crime No. 591 of 2024 of Oachira Police Station registered under Section 20(b) (ii) C & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;

3. Insofar as the first crime is concerned, it concerned the seizure of 9 grams of Ganja and some cash from the possession of the detenu when he was intercepted, while travelling in a car. The detenu pleaded guilty by remitting the fine as the contraband involved was a small quantity.

4. In Crime No. 591 of 2024, the allegation is that on 19.06.2024 at 00:05 hours, the detenu, along with four others, were intercepted by the police while travelling in a car, and they were found in possession of 30 Kgs of Ganja. The seizure involved commercial quantities of Ganja.

5. The detenu was arrested in Crime No. 591 of 2024 on 19.06.2024, and he was remanded. Though he had filed an application for bail before the Court of Session, the same was rejected by order dated 08.10.2024.

6. Smt. Sai Pooja, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that in Crime No. 591 of 2024 of the Oachira Police Station, the detenu was arrested on 19.06.2024, and he has been in judicial custody since then. Though an application for regular bail was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Kollam, the same was rejected by order dated 08.10.2024. Only a passing mention is made in the order that there is a likelihood of the detenu moving an application for bail. She would highlight the restrictions that the NDPS Act has placed on the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. It is further submitted that though the last prejudicial act was committed on 19.06.2024, Ext.P1 proposal was submitted only on 05.11.2024, and the detention order was passed only on 31.12.2024, after about 6 months and 12 days from the date of the last prejudicial activity. According to the learned counsel, the time lapse between the last prejudicial activity and the passing of the order of detention would snap the live link, and on that ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside. Finally, it is submitted that the detenu had submitted a representation before the Advisory Board as early as on 07.02.2025, but the same has not been considered and the fate has not been communicated to the detenu.

7. Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, has opposed the submissions. It is submitted that the detaining authority was well aware of the fact that the detenu was in custody and that his application for bail had already been rejected by the learned Session Judge. Reliance was placed on the observation made by the Apex Court in Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and Ors., [(1992) 1 SCC 1], Union of India v. Ankit Ashok Jalan, [(2020) 16 SCC 185] and Un