Detention cannot be justified when execution is delayed without valid explanation; considerations of bail must be adequately addressed.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

14.08.2025 passed against one Shaji P. C. @ Mayakkam Shaji ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), 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 wife of the detenu. The said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 17.11.2025, 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 14.05.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi City, 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 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.727/2025 of Aluva Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 (b) and

29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. Bimal Prasad, 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.P6 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 detention order, 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 detention order 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. The learned counsel further submitted that, though the impugned order was passed on 14.08.2025, the same was executed only on 08.09.2025. According to the counsel, the said delay in executing the order is unjustifiable and will breach the statutory provision regarding the execution of such an order. On these premises, the learned counsel submitted that the detention order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the Ext.P6 detention order. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the jurisdictional authority passed the Ext.P6 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 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