Preventive detention is justified when bail conditions are inadequate to deter ongoing criminal activities.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 18.10.2025 passed against one Muhammad Asif P. A. ('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. The said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 13.01.2026, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that, on 17.06.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kasaragod, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, fifteen 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.360/2025 of Badiadka Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Smt. Saipooja, 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 is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. The learned counsel 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 the impugned order was mechanically passed. On the said premise, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader 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 Government Pleader further urged that the detention order 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, fifteen 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.360/2025 of Badiadka Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The incident that led to the registration of the said case occurred on 03.05.2025, 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 27.09.2025. It was on 17.06.2025 that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was forwarded by the sponsoring authority.

7. As evident from the record, on receipt of the proposal