Preventive detention can occur despite existing bail if circumstances justify it, but procedural rights of the detained must be upheld.

Jobin Sebastian, J.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated

26.10.2025 passed against one Rahul E. (herein after referred to as '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 mother of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 19.01.2026, 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 15.05.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, two 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.208/2025 of Elathur Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. Mohammed Aslam P. A., 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.P3 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, the jurisdictional authority passed the impugned 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 casual manner. It is further contended that jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P3 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 urged that, out of the copies of the relied-upon documents served on the detenu, some of the copies were not legible. The learned counsel submitted that the lapse on the part of the detaining authority in not serving the legible copies of the relied upon documents prejudiced him as he could not file an effective representation against the detention order before the Government as well as the Advisory Board. On these premises, it was contended that the detention order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed the Ext.P3 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. According to the learned Government Pleader, the copies of all the relevant records were furnished to the detenu, and the detenu was duly informed of his right to file a representation against the detention order before the Government as well as the Advisory Board. The learn