The court affirmed that a preventive detention order can be validly issued even if the subject is on bail, provided the authority considers the efficacy of the bail conditions.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 31.12.2025 passed against one Ajmal ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), underSection 3(1) of thePrevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988(‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity). The petitioner herein is the father of the detenu.

2. The records reveal that, on 17.10.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, four cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the order of detention. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.524/2025 of Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b), 27A, 29 r/w

8(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. Nireesh Mathew, 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 the Ext.P1 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 order of detention, 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. According to the learned counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. On these premises, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Public Prosecutor asserted that there is no delay in passing the Ext.P1 detention order. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed the Ext.P1 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 Public Prosecutor further urged that the order of detention 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 the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in narcotic criminal activities. As already stated, four cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing the detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.524/2025 of Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b), 27A, 29 r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 12.07.2025, and the detenu was caught red-handed with the contraband on the same day itself. As evident from the records, he was granted bail in the said case on 10.11.2025. It was o