Detention under the PITNDPS Act may be justified even with significant gaps between offences, as individual cases alone can warrant detention.

J U D G M E N T

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

24.11.2025 passed against one Akshay C. Aji (herein after referred to as the 'detenu'), under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’

for brevity). The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu.

2. As evident from the records, it was on the basis of a proposal dated 16.08.2025, forwarded by the District Police Chief, Kottayam, that the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent, initiated proceedings against the detenu under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS Act. Algother four 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.893/2025 of Kottayam West Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 (b)(ii)B and 29 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 Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P2 order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. The learned counsel further submitted that there was an unreasonable delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order and the said delay will certainly snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. It was further submitted that while passing Ext.P2 order, the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact that there was a time gap of around 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 Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P2 order was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. According to the Government Pleader, there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order. The learned Government Pleader further urged that the impugned order requires no interference as the same was passed after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction. 6. The records reveal that the detention order was passed by the jurisdictional authority after considering the recurrent involvement of the detenu in narcotic drug peddling cases. As already stated, four cases in which the detenu got involved had formed the basis for passing the detention order. One of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is an inordinate delay in mooting the proposal as well as in passing the detention order. According to the learned counsel, the said delay will certainly snap the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention.

7. While considering the contention of the petitioner regarding the delay in passing the impugned order, it could not be ignored that an order under Section 3 (1) of the PITNDPS has a significant bearing on the personal as well as the fundamental rights of an individual. Therefore, such an order could not be passed in a mechanical manner; instead, it can only be passed on credible materials and after arriving at the requisite objective and subjective satisfaction. Furthermore, there exists no inflexible rule requiring a detention order to be issued within a spec