Detention under the PITNDPS Act is valid despite time gaps in offenses and concurrent proceedings under other laws.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 04.10.2025 passed against one Alex Chacko, S/o Chacko Joseph (herein after referred to as the '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 none other than the father of the detenu.

2. As evident from the records, it was on the basis of a proposal dated 07.07.2025, forwarded by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent, initiated proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act. Algother two cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority while passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.398/2025 of Badiadka Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The allegation in the said case is that on 18.05.2025, the detenu was found keeping and possessing 107.090 gms of MDMA for sale in contravention of the provisions contained under the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri.R.Anaz Muhammed Shamnadanas, 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 was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. 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 two 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. The learned counsel further urged that, the jurisdictional authority disregarded the fact that already proceedings have been initiated against the detenu under Section 129 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and the same would have been sufficient to prevent the detenu from involving in criminal activities. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P1 order was passed upon proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, the initiation of proceedings under Section 129 of BNSS will not preclude the jurisdictional authority to pass a detention order under KAA(P) Act, if it is satisfied that the proceedings under Section 129 of BNSS will not suffice to deter the detenu from involving in criminal activities. 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. The records reveal that the impugned order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in narcotic drug peddling cases. As already stated, two cases in which the detenu got involved had formed the basis for passing the detention order.

7. One of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact that there was a time gap of around two years between the last prejudicial activity and the last but one case registered against the detenu, and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived on by the det