A detention order may be upheld despite prior bail, provided there is adequacy in evaluating preventive measures.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 26.07.2025 passed against one Sabin, S/o. Jalal (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 04.10.2025, after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that on 25.04.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the order of detention. Out of the three cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.475/2025 of Kazhakuttam Police Station, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections

22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri.Mithun Pavanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order without taking note of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity. According to the learned counsel, as the bail conditions themselves were sufficient to restrain the detenu from being involved in further criminal activities, an order of detention under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated. The learned counsel further submitted that while passing Ext.P1 order, the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact that there was a time gap of around three years between the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case registered against the detenu, and the said time gap itself shows that the detenu is not a person having the propensity to be involved in criminal activities repeatedly. On these premises, it was argued that Ext.P1 order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after complying with all the procedural formalities and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned Government Pleader asserted that in the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to. Likewise, it was after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being involved in criminal activities, the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the impugned order requires no interference as the same was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction.

6. As already stated, one of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was without taking note of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity and without considering the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed by the court