Detention order valid under PITNDPS Act if triple test satisfied despite detenu in custody for last prejudicial activity.

The petitioner herein is the mother of one Vishnu V. Gopal ('detenu' for the sake of brevity), and her challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext.P4 order of detention dated 19.12.2025, passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS Act for brevity).

2. The records reveal that, on 24.09.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kottayam, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority, the 2nd respondent. Altogether, three 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.1399/2025 of the Vaikom Police Station, alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 (b) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. V. Vishal Ajayan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K.A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. Relying on the decision in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another, [1991 (1) SCC 128] , the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in cases wherein the detenu is in judicial custody, in connection with the last prejudicial activity, a detention order under preventive detention laws can be validly passed only on satisfaction of the triple test mentioned in the said decision by the Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel, as the impugned order was passed while the detenu was in judicial custody in connection with the last prejudicial activity, it was incumbent upon the authority to satisfy itself that it has reason to believe, on the basis of reliable material placed before it that, there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and that on being so released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activity. According to the counsel, such a satisfaction is not entered into by the jurisdictional authority while passing the Ext.P4 detention order. The learned counsel further submited that Ext.P4 detention order was passed on improper consideration of facts and without proper application of mind. Moreover the learned counsel urged that there occurred 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. On these premises, it was submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext. P4 detention order was issued by the jurisdictional authority after complying with all procedural requirements and upon arriving at the requisite objective, as well as subjective satisfaction. The learned Government Pleader contended that, at the time of issuing the detention order, the authority was fully aware that the detenu was already in judicial custody in connection with his most recent prejudicial activity. It was only after being satisfied that there existed a real and imminent likelihood of the detenu being released on bail and that, if so released, he would, in all probability, engage in further criminal activities, that the authority proceeded to pass the detention order. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, the detention order remains legally sustainable notwithstanding the fact that the detenu was in judicial custody when the impugned order was issued. The learned Government Pleader further contended that there is no inordinate delay either in mooting the proposal