Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V.,J, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J
Sulajakumari.R, W/o Shajimon.B – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the detenu's involvement in narcotic cases. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of the detention order. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
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 o
Preventive detention requires substantial evidence of imminent release on bail; mere assertions are insufficient.
Preventive detention requires clear evidence of imminent bail release and potential future offenses; insufficient reasoning invalidates detention orders.
Preventive detention requires cogent evidence of a detainee's likelihood of bail and potential for prejudicial activities; failure to consider these factors invalidates the detention order.
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.
Preventive detention valid against judicially custodied detenu if authority satisfied of bail likelihood and prejudicial relapse risk, despite NDPS Section 37 rigours.
The court affirmed that a preventive detention order can be validly issued even if the subject is on bail, provided the authority considers the efficacy of the bail conditions.
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 can occur despite existing bail if circumstances justify it, but procedural rights of the detained must be upheld.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
