Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SOUMEN SEN, CJ., SYAM KUMAR V. M., J.
Sulaiman M.V. Son Of S.M.Koya - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) No.701 of 2026
Decided On : 07-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.22(b), S.22(c), S.29, S.29(1)
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.126
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.22(5), Art.226
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.107
Headnote
(B) Preventive Detention - Delay in issuance of order - Test of proximity - Delay is not a mechanical count of days but must be examined for satisfactory explanation for the duration taken in administrative processing so as to ensure the live link between the past conduct and future necessity is not broken. (Paras 21-22)
(C) Preventive Detention - Availability of alternative remedies - Bail cancellation - Pendency of prosecution or the existence of procedures for bail cancellation does not preclude the exercise of preventive detention power when the authority has determined the real possibility of future involvement in prejudicial activities. (Paras 32-34)
(D) Preventive Detention - Constitutional safeguards - Communication of grounds - Article 22(5) - Procedure is satisfied when grounds are conveyed and explained effectively in a language known to the person, and acknowledged by them during execution of the warrant. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging a detention order issued against an individual involved in multiple narcotic trafficking offenses. The petitioner argued that excessive delay in issuing the order invalidated the necessity for detention, contended that bail cancellation was the appropriate remedy rather than detention, and alleged that the authority failed to consider alternative measures and neglected to provide the grounds of detention in a language understood by the person.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the detention order was based on the authority's subjective satisfaction, derived from relevant materials, and that the timeline of the administrative process was adequately explained. It held that preventive detention serves a purpose distinct from punitive criminal prosecution and that existing alternative legal remedies do not impede the validity of an order aimed at preventing organized criminal activity.
Issues: The main issues were whether the detention order was invalidated by the time taken for processing, whether the lack of bail cancellation efforts rendered the detention redundant, and whether the communication of grounds was constitutionally deficient.
Ratio Decidendi: Preventive detention is an administrative precautionary action based on the probability of future misconduct; it is not tethered to the outcome of pending criminal trials. If the authority manifests subjective satisfaction based on documented antecedents, and the administrative delay is substantiated by procedural steps, the detention order stands valid under judicial review.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.C.C.Anoop, Sri.Aflah C.P.
For the Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor Sri. Biju Meenattoor
JUDGMENT
Soumen Sen, C.J.
This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P1 Detention Order dated 30th January, 2026, 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 short), and Exhibit P3 Government Order dated 19th March, 2026, confirming the detention.
2. The petitioner is the paternal uncle of Sri. Adeep Muhammed Salih, aged 36 years, son of Muhammed Salih, Perachangadi, Naduvattam, North Beypore, Kozhikode District (hereinafter referred to as the “detenu”), who is presently undergoing preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act. Since the detenu is in custody and unable to approach this Court directly, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
3. The detenu was arrested on 2nd February, 2026 and lodged in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, in execution of Exhibit P1 detention order passed on the basis of a proposal for preventive detention submitted by the 3rd respondent, which is produced as Exhibit P2.
4. The detention order is founded on the allegation that the detenu was involved in two cases registered under theNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act, for short), namely: (i) Crime No.325/2025 of Town Police Station, Kozhikode City, registered for offences punishable under Sections 22(b) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act; and (ii) Crime No.1389/2025 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad, registered for offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. In Crime No.325/2025 of Town Police Station, Kozhikode City, the NDPS Special Court, Vatakara has granted bail to the detenu on 5th June, 2025, inter alia, on the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum. Sureties shall produce original title deeds for verification.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on all Monday between 10 AM and 11 AM for a period of three months and thereafter as and when directed by the investigating officer.
3. The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses for prosecution and they shall not in any way interfere with the proper investigation and trial of the case.
4. The petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the court
5. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offence while on bail
6. In the event of violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be liable for cancellation in accordance with law.
5. After the detenue was released on bail, he was again apprehended and arrested on 9th October, 2025, in connection with offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. This case was registered as Crime No.1389/2025 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad. The detenue was subsequently granted bail on 13th November, 2025 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge–II, Kalpetta, inter alia, on the following conditions:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him in writing to do so.
2. The petitioners shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the witnesses and they shall not have any contact with the prosecution witnesses directly or through any other mode.
3. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence.
4. The petitioners shall not get involved in any offences during the currency of the bail period.
5. The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of this Court.
6. They shall intimate their place of residence together with their contact number to the SHO, Sulthan Bathery Police Station.
7. The petitioners shall surrender their passport before this court and if they don't possess the same, they shall file an affidavit to that effect within 3 days of their release.
6. The investigation in both the cases were comple
