A detention order under preventive laws is valid for an individual in custody if there is a justified belief of imminent bail release and potential reoffending.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against a detention order passed under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS Act for brevity) against one Anila Raveendran, D/o. Raveendran Pillai ('detenu' for the sake of brevity). The said detention order stands confirmed by the Government, vide order dated 22.10.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. As evident from the records, it was on the basis of a proposal dated 17.05.2025, forwarded by the District Police Chief, Kollam City, that the jurisdictional authority 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 for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.493/2025 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections

22(c), 27A and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. C. R. Jayakumar, 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 Ext.P1 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, [1991 (1) SCC 128] , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in cases wherein the detenu is under judicial custody, a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in the said decision by the Supreme Court. According to the counsel, as the impugned order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the case registered against him, it was incumbent upon the authority to satisfy itself that it has reason to believe, on the basis of reliable material placed before it that, there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, though in the Ext.P1 order, it is mentioned that the detenu was undergoing judicial custody, it is nowhere mentioned that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail in the case registered against him. It was 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 more than 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 urged that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Ext.P1 detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after complying with all the procedural formalities and after arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Public Prosecutor, the said order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after being satisfied that a detention order under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act is the only way to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities. It was further contended that the jurisdictional authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu was in judicial cust