Preventive detention is justified despite alternative remedies when immediate risks of repeated criminal activities exist.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The petitioner herein is the father of one Shajahan P. M. ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and his challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P1 order of detention dated 08.01.2026, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS Act for brevity).

2. The records reveal that, on 22.10.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, eight 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 with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.987/205 of Bekal Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b), 29, and 31 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 Public Prosecutor.

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 submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P1 order in a hasty manner without considering the fact that there was an effective remedy of cancellation of the bail granted to the detenu. According to the counsel, as an alternative remedy was available to deter the detenu from repeating criminal activities, a drastic measure of preventive detention was not at all necessitated. The learned counsel further submitted that, although the detenu was not conversant with the Kannada language, the documents relating to the penultimate case, which were furnished to the detenu at the time of execution of the detention order, were prepared in Kannada. The Malayalam translations of the said documents were not served on him. Consequently, the detenu was deprived of an effective opportunity to make a meaningful representation before the Government as well as the Advisory Board. 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 order was passed after due application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. It was further submitted that copies of all documents pertaining to the penultimate case registered against the detenu, duly translated into Malayalam, were served on the detenu, and that the contentions raised to the contrary by the petitioner are wholly baseless. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order after being fully satisfied that recourse to ordinary criminal law, including cancellation of bail, was insufficient, thereby necessitating the issuance of the preventive detention order.

6. The records reveal that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in narcotic peddling activities. As already stated, eight cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.987/2025 of Bekal Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b), 29, and 31 of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 22.08.2025, and the detenu was arrested in the said case on 08.09.2025. As evident from the records, he was granted bail in the