Preventive detention under PITNDPS valid despite bail if conditions insufficient to prevent drug trafficking, distinct from BNSS proceedings.

This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 13.01.2026 passed against one Muhammed Rafi (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), underSection 3(1) of thePrevention of Illicit Traffic inNarcotic 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 19.03.2026, 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 12.11.2025, a proposal was submitted by the District Police Chief, Kollam 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.2171/2025 of Karunagappally Police Station, alleging commission of the offence punishable underSection 22(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. We heard Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P1 order is illegal, arbitrary, and has been passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, the jurisdictional authority issued the impugned order without taking into account the fact that the detenu had been released on bail in the case registered in respect of the last prejudicial activity, and that the conditions imposed while granting bail were, by themselves, sufficient to deter the detenu from engaging in further criminal activities. It is contended that the adequacy and effectiveness of the bail conditions were not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and that the impugned order was passed in a casual and mechanical manner. It is further contended that the detenu has been falsely implicated in the cases registered against him and that there are no materials to substantiate his alleged involvement in those cases. The learned counsel also argues that the jurisdictional authority failed to take note of the fact that proceedings had already been initiated against the detenu underSection 126of theBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023( BNSS ), which would have been sufficient to prevent him from engaging in further drug trafficking activities. On these premises, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted 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 peddling activities. As already stated, two cases in which the detenu got involved formed the basis for passing Ext.P1 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity is Cr