The jurisdictional authority's due consideration of bail conditions is crucial for lawful preventive detention.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 6.8.2025 passed against one Arun Babu, S/o Ramesh Babu (herein after referred to as ‘the detenu’) under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act. The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu. The said detention order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 16.10.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year, from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that on 21.5.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of 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 Ext.P10 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.386/2025 of the Museum Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b) (ii) (B) and

29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. Pirappancode Sudheer V.S, 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 the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and on improper consideration of facts. He further 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, 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. According to the learned counsel, the conditions imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail were sufficient to prevent him from repeating criminal activities, and a detention order under the KAA(P) Act was not at all necessitated. The learned Counsel further urged that though the detenu had forwarded a representation to the Government, assailing the detention order through the jail superintendent concerned, the said representation was not considered by the Government, and its fate was also not communicated. On these premises, it was urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext. P10 detention order after taking note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in connection with the case registered with respect to 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 submitted that the representation submitted by the detenu through the jail superintendent was considered by the Government, and its fate was duly communicated to the detenu and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, sticking on non- consideration of the representation, is absolutely baseless. According to the learned Government Pleader, the detention order was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction and hence no interference is warranted.

6. Before delving into a discussion regarding the ri