Preventive detention requires a clear basis for its necessity, especially if the individual is already on bail.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 04.10.2025 passed against one Umarul Farookh K.N('detenu' for the sake of brevity), 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 mother of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that, on 25.07.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kollam City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2^nd respondent. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases considered, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.443/2025 of Thrikkakara Police Station, alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 (b) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri.P.Mohamed Sabah, 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.P2 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order, and hence, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is snapped. The learned counsel further urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned order of detention 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 the conditions imposed on him at the time of granting bail itself were sufficient to deter the detenu from being involved in further criminal activities. On these premises, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the impugned order of detention as claimed in this writ petition. The learned Government pleader further submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed the Ext.P2 order after taking note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the last prejudicial activity and 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 learned Government Pleader further urged that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.

6. The records reveal that four cases in which the detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing Ext.P2 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.443/2025 of Thrikkakara Police Station, alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 (b) of the NDPS Act. The allegation in the said case is that the detenu was found in possession of 121.42 gms of Nitrazepam Tablet in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. The detenu was caught red-handed with the contraband on 27.06.2025. As evident from the records, he was granted bail in the said case on 27.08.2025. It was on 25.07.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was forwarded by the sponsoring authority. We are cognizant of