Kerala High Court
Anandhavally vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2026
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 1
2026:KER:50667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO.870 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ANANDHAVALLY
AGED 82 YEARS
W/O THULASIDHARAN, VISAKH HOUSE,
PERUNGUZHI P.O, NALUMUKKU,
PERUNGUZHI DESOM, AZHOOR VILLAGE,
TRIVANDRUM DIST, PIN - 695305
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH
SHRI.ANTONY PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHAKAD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL
PATTOOR PMG ROAD, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 2
2026:KER:50667
5 THE SECRETARY, ADVISORY BOARD
THE PREVENTION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN- NARCOTIC
DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE ACT,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL
CENTRAL PRISON & CORRECTIONAL HOME,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695012
BY ADV.SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 3
2026:KER:50667
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2026
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This W.P.(Crl.) is filed by the mother of
Mr.Sabarinath, who is detained in the Central Prison and
Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram, and continues to
be under detention pursuant to the order passed under
Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short ‘PIT NDPS
Act‘). Petitioner challenges the detention of her son as illegal
and seeks to issue a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of
certiorari quashing the orders leading to his detention.
2. Copies of the detention order bearing
No.SSC1/189/2025-Home dated 22.01.2026 issued by the
1st respondent and the Confirmation Order bearing No.GO
(Rt) No.1289/2026/Home dated 06.04.2026 are produced
along with the W.P.(Crl.) as Exhibits P1 and P2 respectively.
Petitioner inter alia seeks to quash Exhibit P1.
3. A memo has also been filed by the learned Public
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 4
2026:KER:50667
Prosecutor on 25.06.2026 producing therewith the statement
of facts furnished by the 4th respondent District Police Chief,
Thiruvananthapuram (Rural).
4. Since it was deemed necessary to have a closer
scrutiny of the records and procedures undertaken by the
authorities leading to Exhibits P1 and P2 orders, we had on
09.06.2026 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to produce
the original records in a sealed envelope. Pursuant to the said
direction, a sealed cover has been produced containing the
report, opinion dated 31.03.2026 and the proceedings of the
Advisory Board concerning the detenu along with connected
documents.
5. We heard Mr.M.J.Santhosh, Advocate appeared
for the petitioner and Mr.Biju Meenattoor, learned Senior
Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that Exhibit P1 order issued invoking Section 3(1) of the PIT
NDPS Act and its confirmation, vide Exhibit P2 order are
illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by errors apparent on the face of
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 5
2026:KER:50667
the record. It is submitted that there had been no application
of mind to the relevant materials before issuing the detention
order and that the same had been issued without following
the procedures prescribed by the law. The learned counsel
further contended that there was a delay of 4 months from
the date of last prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu
and the detention order. Thus, according to the learned
counsel, the live link between the last prejudicial activity and
the purpose sought to be achieved by the order of preventive
detention had snapped. It is also submitted that there was a
delay of 2 months from the report of the sponsoring authority
to the date of detention and no reasonable explanation has
been offered for the said delay which according to the learned
counsel is inordinate. The learned counsel further contends
that though the report of the screening committee to the
Government was issued on 24.12.2025, the detention order
was issued only on 22.01.2026 i.e. after a delay of 1 month. It
is submitted that the detenu had not been involved in any
NDPS cases after 11.09.2025 and reliance is placed on the
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 6
2026:KER:50667
dictum laid down in Anjana Das P. v. State of Kerala [2026:
KER:16817 (W.P.(Crl) No.308 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026)]
wherein a delay of 32 days for issuing detention order after
the report of the screening committee was held to be
inordinate. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of this
Court in Ramla A. v. State of Kerala [2025:KER:73770 (W.P.
(Crl) No.1268 of 2025 dated 07.10.2025)] and Asmabi
Basheer K.P. v. State of Kerala [2026:KER:21937 (W.P.(Crl)
No.339 of 2026 dated 11.03.2026)] wherein the delay of 28
days and 45 days respectively in issuing the detention order
after the decision of the screening committee were held to be
sufficient to vitiate the detention order. The learned counsel
also points to the judgment of the court in Suneera v. State
of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 584] to contend that failure of Police
Department to leverage the available technology to expedite
the process and instead offer weak excuses for the delay
undermines the principles of personal liberty that are to be
scrupulously adhered to before venturing to preventively
detain a citizen, and that such explanations are not only
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 72026:KER:50667
unsatisfactory, but also incompatible with the duty to protect
an individual’s right to timely and just legal process. It is
thus submitted by the learned counsel that the delay
occasioned is inordinate rendering the detention order illegal
and unsustainable. The confirmation of the same was without
taking into consideration the non-compliance of statutory
procedure leading to its issuance. Thus the confirmation too
bad and unsustainable in law. The learned counsel thus
prays that Exhibits P1 and P2 orders may be quashed and
the W.P.(Crl) may be allowed as prayed for.
7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor based
on the statement filed, submitted that all statutory
requirements had been complied with while issuing Exhibits
P1 and P2 orders. It is submitted that the detenu against
whom the detention order under Exhibit P1 has been issued
is a habitual offender in drug trafficking and is operational in
the Districts of Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam within the
State. It is submitted that he along with associates have been
indulging in transporting drugs from other States and has
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 8
2026:KER:50667
been involved in 6 NDPS cases for transporting, processing
and supplying of medium and large quantity of narcotic
substances ganja and methamphetamine for sale at Varkala,
Attingal and Neyyattinkara police subdivision limits,
Thiruvananthapuram Rural and in Kollam District.
Preventive measures initiated against him under Section 129
BNSS and the stringent bail conditions imposed upon him
earlier by the courts were proven inadequate to prevent him
from committing drug peddling activities and it has after
being objectively and subjectively satisfied that for the further
maintenance of public tranquility in Thiruvananthapuram
and other Districts, the initiation of Section 3(1) of PIT NDPS
Act is inevitable and necessary.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits
that the contention put forth regarding snapping of live link
due to alleged delay is incorrect and unsustainable. The
proposal against the detenu was submitted on 24.11.2025
within 2 months and 13 days from the last prejudicial
activity. The last crime registered against the detenu was on
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 9
2026:KER:50667
11.09.2025. i.e. at Varkala Police Station in Crime No.1361 of
2025 under Section 22 (c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. In the
said case, the detenu had been granted bail by the Additional
Sessions Court-1, Thiruvananthapuram 11.11.2025. Based
on the proposal submitted on 24.11.2025, the screening
committee of PIT NDPS Act heard the sponsoring authority on
24.12.2025 for scrutinising the proposal. After due
compliance with mandatory procedure, the detaining
authority ordered the detention of the detenu under Section
3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act vide Exhibit P1 order dated
22.01.2025. As required under Section 9(b) of the PIT NDPS
Act, the detaining authority referred the case of the detenu to
the advisory body, and the Advisory Board after hearing
perusing the relevant records, concluded that there are
sufficient reasons for continued detention of the detenu. The
Advisory Board had on 06.04.2026, confirmed the detention
of the detenu for undergoing preventive detention for a period
of one year. There is thus no snapping of live link and
reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Radhika
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 10
2026:KER:50667
v. State of Kerala [2025 (1) KLT 426], wherein it has been
held that if the detenu is likely to be released from custody
and if in the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu
there is likelihood that after his release from judicial custody
he would still indulge in prejudicial activities, then it is
necessary and imperative to detain him for the purpose of
preventing him from engaging in such activities.
9. It is submitted by the learned Senior public
prosecutor that the date of commission of the last prejudicial
activity is 11.09.2025 of Varkala Police Station under Crime
No.1361 of 2025 and the detenu was arrested on 11.09.2025.
Thereafter he was released on 11.11.2025 pursuant to the
bail granted by the Additional Sessions Court-1,
Thiruvananthapuram. The contraband that had been seized
from him was 50.47 grams of methamphetamine, which is of
commercial quantity. The date of report of the sponsoring
authority is 24.11.2025 and the State Police Chief had
forwarded the proposal with connected records on
20.12.2025. Six number of NDPS cases had been reckoned
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 11
2026:KER:50667
for issuing the detention order and the order of detention is
dated 22.01.2026. The date of execution of the order of
detention is 26.02.2026, which though is beyond a period of
one month the same has valid reasons and explanation. The
learned Senior Public Prosecutor submits that the detenu
was absconding and a team had to be constituted to find him
out and to execute the detention order. After conducting
several enquiries, reliable information had been obtained that
the detainee was in Bangalore. A special team had been sent
to Bangalore after obtaining the due permissions. On
investigation, the detenu was located at a place called
Dharappalli on 24.02.2026. After he was apprehended and
while the police party was bringing him back by train to
Kerala, when the train reached Aluva Railway Station, the
detenu escaped through the toilet window glass and he was
later found at Aluva Carmel Hospital. A crime has been
registered against the detenu as Railway Police Crime No.139
of 2026 under Section 265 of the BNSS. It is submitted that
he was brought to Chirayankeezhu Police Station on
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 12
2026:KER:50667
25.02.2026 at 11.10 P.M. and the detention order was
executed by the ISHO Chirayankeezhu Police Station on
26.02.2026 at 01.00 P.M. The learned Senior Public
Prosecutor submits that the delay in executing the detention
order occurred on the above account and that all mandatory
provisions of the PIT NDPS Act were complied with within a
reasonable and well explained time limit. There is thus no
cause or reason to interfere with Exhibits P1 and P2 orders, it
is submitted.
10. We have heard both sides in detail and have
considered the respective contentions put forth. We have also
perused the report of the Advisory Board along with the
‘Reasons for its opinion’, and the ‘Proceedings of the Advisory
Board’ produced by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor in a
sealed envelope. We note that the Advisory Board had heard
the detenu, on 26.03.2026. Thereafter, the Advisory Board
had provided its opinion.
11. The first contention put forth by the petitioner is
concerning delay. It is the case of the petitioner that there
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 13
2026:KER:50667
had been inordinate and unexplained delay on more than one
count. First, it is contended that there has been a delay of 4
months between the Last Prejudicial Activity on 11.09.2025
and the issuance of the detention on 22.01.2026. The next
major delay alleged by the petitioner is that of two months
between the report of the sponsoring authority on 24.12.2025
and the issuance of the detention order on 22.01.2026. A
delay of 30 days is also alleged in issuing the detention order
on 22.01.2026 from the date of report of the screening
committee on 24.12.2025. The law regarding delay in
preventive detention matters and as to when it could be
termed as snapping the live link between the offence and the
order of detention is no longer res integra.
12. The question concerning delay in preventive
detention matters and the impact thereof on the detention
has been subject matter of authoritative precedents. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Licil Antony v. State of Kerala
and another [(2014) 11 SCC 326], has held that delays in
issuing or executing a preventive detention order do not
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 14
2026:KER:50667
automatically invalidate the detention as long as the state
provides a reasonable, tenable explanation showing that the
“live link” between the individual’s illegal activity and the
need for detention was not broken. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court had the occasion to consider the same question in
Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and others [(2006) 4 SCC
796] in which it has been held as follows:
“20. Furthermore no explanation whatsoever has been
offered by the respondent as to why the order of
detention has been issued after such a long time. The
said question has also not been examined by the
Authorities before issuing the order of detention.
21. The question as regards delay in issuing the order
of detention has been held to be a valid ground for
quashing an order of detention by this Court in
T.A.Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala: 1989) 4 SCC
741 stating: (SCC pp. 748-49, paras 10-11)
’10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be
summarised thus: The question whether the
prejudicial activities of a person necessitating to
pass an order of detention is proximate to the
time when the order is made or the live-link
between the prejudicial activities and the purpose
of detention is snapped depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case. No hard-and-fast rule
can be precisely formulated that would be
applicable under all circumstances and no
exhaustive guidelines can be laid down in that
behalf. It follows that the test of proximity is not
a rigid or mechanical test by merely counting
number of months between the offending acts and
the order of detention. However, when there is undue
and long delay between the prejudicial activities and
the passing of detention order, the court has to
scrutinise whether the detaining authority has
satisfactorily examined such a delay and afforded a
tenable and reasonable explanation as to why such a
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 152026:KER:50667
delay has occasioned, when called upon to answer and
further the court has to investigate whether the causal
connection has been broken in the circumstances of
each case.
11. Similarly when there is unsatisfactory and
unexplained delay between the date of order of
detention and the date of securing the arrest of the
detenu, such a delay would throw considerable doubt
on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority leading to a legitimate inference that
the detaining authority was not really and genuinely
satisfied as regards the necessity detaining the detenu
with a view to preventing him from acting in a
prejudicial manner.’ (Emphasis Supplied)It would also be relevant to take note of the dictum laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.A.Abdul Rahman v.
State of Kerala and others [(1989) 4 SCC 741] had referred
to the observations in Golam Hussain alias Gama v.
Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and others [(1974) 4
SCC 530] as follows:-
“10. The conspectus of the above decisions can be
summarised thus: The question whether the prejudicial
activities of a person necessitating to pass an order of
detention is proximate to the time when the order is
made or the live-link between the prejudicial activities
and the purpose of detention is snapped depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast
rule can be precisely formulated that would be
applicable under all circumstances and no exhaustive
guidelines can be laid down in that behalf. It follows
that the test of proximity is not a rigid or mechanical test
by merely counting number of months between the
offending acts and the order of detention. However,
when there is undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activities and the passing of detention order,
the court has to scrutinise whether the detaining
authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay and
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 162026:KER:50667
afforded a tenable and reasonable explanation as to
why such a delay has occasioned, when called upon to
answer and further the court has to investigate whether
the causal connection has been broken in the
circumstances of each case.” (emphasis supplied)In the light of the above dictum which is now trite and
settled, it can be concluded that mere delay in initiating or
passing a detention order is not by itself fatal. If the delay is
properly explained and the explanation is found to be
satisfactory, such delay cannot be regarded as inordinate so
as to vitiate the order of detention. Therefore, there exists no
inflexible rule requiring a detention order to be issued within
a specific time frame following the last prejudicial act. It is in
the light of the above legal position that the contention put
forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding delay
leading to snapping of live link has to be considered.
13. As regards the case at hand, the last crime i.e.,
Crime No.1361 of 2025 of Varkala Police Station was
registered against the detenu on 11.09.2025 and he was
arrested on that day itself. He was subsequently enlarged on
bail on 11.11.2025 because of the anomalies noted in the
grounds of arrest. The detaining authority had valid and well-
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 17
2026:KER:50667
founded apprehension that the detenu will continue his
illegal activities in the future. The proposal was submitted on
24.11.2025 is within 13 days of his release on bail and an
additional report was also submitted on 15.01.2026 by the
sponsoring authority. The State Police Chief, after
scrutinising the proposal and report, submitted the proposal
and report on 20.12.2025 and 19.01.2026. On receipt of the
proposal, the matter was placed before the screening
committee on 24.12.2025 and after receiving the opinion of
the screening committee, the detaining authority passed the
detention order on 22.01.2026 which could be executed only
on 26.02.2026 because the detenu was absconding.
14. It is thus revealed from records that the matter
was processed continuously through the various statutory
and administrative stages, without any unexplained
interruption or lack of diligence on the part of the authorities.
We are, therefore, satisfied that the time taken to complete
the process has been sufficiently accounted for. In the
absence of any material indicating lethargy, inaction, or
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 18
2026:KER:50667
unexplained delay on the part of the authorities, we are
unable to accept the contention that the live and proximate
nexus between the prejudicial activities and the detention
order had been severed.
15. The next point to be considered is the contention
that the detenu was on bail pending trial in the cases in
which he had been arraigned as accused and there was no
reason to invoke the preventive detention law in the
meanwhile. It is trite that preventive detention and criminal
prosecution serve different legal purposes. While criminal
prosecution may aim to impose punishment for offences that
have already been committed, preventive detention on the
other hand intends to prevent an individual from engaging in
similar activities that may be harmful or prejudicial in the
future. It has been held in the case of the State of Tamil
Nadu v. Nabila and another [(2015) 12 SCC 127], referring to
a Constitution Bench decision in Haradhan Saha [(1975) 3
SCC 198], in which it was held as follows:
“32. The power of preventive detention is
qualitatively different from punitive detention. The
power of preventive detention is a precautionary power
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 192026:KER:50667
exercised in reasonable anticipation. It may or may not
relate to an offence. It is not a parallel proceeding. It
does not overlap with prosecution even if it relies on
certain facts for which prosecution may be launched or
may have been launched. An order of preventive
detention may be made before or during prosecution. An
order of preventive detention may be made with or
without prosecution and in anticipation or after
discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of
prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive
detention. An order of preventive detention is also not a
bar to prosecution.
33. Article 14 is inapplicable because preventive
detention and prosecution are not synonymous. The
purposes are different. The authorities are different. The
nature of proceedings is different. In a prosecution an
accused is sought to be punished for a past act. In
preventive detention, the past act is merely the material
for inference about the future course of probable
conduct on the part of the detenu.
34. The recent decisions of this Court on this
subject are many. The decisions in Borjahan Gorey v.
State of W.B. [Borjahan Gorey v. State of W.B., (1972) 2
SCC 550 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 888 : (1973) 1 SCR 751] ,
Ashim Kumar Ray v. State of W.B. [Ashim Kumar Ray v.
State of W.B., (1973) 4 SCC 76 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 723] ,
Abdul Aziz v. District Magistrate, Burdwan [Abdul Aziz
v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, (1973) 1 SCC 301 :
1973 SCC (Cri) 321 : AIR 1973 SC 770] and Debu
Mahato v. State of W.B. [Debu Mahato v. State of W.B.,
(1974) 4 SCC 135 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 274] correctly lay
down the principles to be followed as to whether a
detention order is valid or not. The decision in Biram
Chand v. State of U.P. [Biram Chand v. State of U.P.,
(1974) 4 SCC 573 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 609] , which is a
Division Bench decision of two learned Judges is
contrary to the other Bench decisions consisting in each
case of three learned Judges. The principles which can
be broadly stated are these. First, merely because a
detenu is liable to be tried in a criminal court for the
commission of a criminal offence or to be proceeded
against for preventing him from committing offences
dealt with in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal
Procedure would not by itself debar the Government
from taking action for his detention under the Act.
Second, the fact that the Police arrests a person and
later on enlarges him on bail and initiates steps to
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 20
2026:KER:50667
prosecute him under the Code of Criminal Procedure
and even lodges a first information report may be no
bar against the District Magistrate issuing an order
under the preventive detention. Third, where the
concerned person is actually in jail custody at the time
when an order of detention is passed against him and
is not likely to be released for a fair length of time, it
may be possible to contend that there could be no
satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to
the likelihood of such a person indulging in activities
which would jeopardise the security of the State or the
public order. Fourth, the mere circumstance that a
detention order is passed during the pendency of the
prosecution will not violate the order. Fifth, the order of
detention is a precautionary measure. It is based on a
reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of a
person based on his past conduct in the light of the
surrounding circumstances.” (emphasis supplied)
In addition to the fact that the law is thus very clear and
precise that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a bar
against initiation of preventive detention action, we note that
the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed on the detenu in
the bail orders and whether it would deter the detenu from
future offences had also engaged the attention of the
authorities.
16. We note that the authorities have considered
and concluded that the bail conditions imposed on the
detenu at the time he was granted bail in the respective
criminal cases were not sufficient to prevent the detenu from
further involvement in criminal activities taking note of his
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 21
2026:KER:50667
antecedents and prior violation of bail conditions. The detenu
had been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram, in Crl.M.P.No.1996 of 2021 in Crime
No.1863 of 2021 of Chirayinkeezhu Police Station for offences
punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) B, 2B and 29 of the NDPS
Act as well as in Crl.M.P.No.1853 of 2021 of Chirayinkeezhu
Police Station in Crime No.1782 of 2021 under Section 20(b)
(ii) B, 2B and 29 of the NDPS Act. The detenu had, in
violation of the bail conditions, again committed the crime
registered in Varkala Police Station as Crime No.1361 of
2025. It has also been noted that the bail condition, which
read that “the petitioner shall not get involved in any offence
while on bail,” subject to which the bail had been granted had
been breached by the petitioner by again getting involved in
the Crime No.1361 of 2025 of the Varkala Police Station. A
bail cancellation report had been submitted by the ISHO’s
Chirayinkeezhu Police Station before the Additional Sessions
Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the said report had been
under the consideration of the court. There were thus valid
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 22
2026:KER:50667
material and cogent reasons for the authorities to invoke
Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act against the detenu
apprehending commission of further narcotic offences by him .
17. Considering the entirety of the fact and the
conduct of the detenu and applying the law laid down in
Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another [(1991) 1 SCC
128], we are of the view that the triple test laid down therein
has been squarely applicable in the instant case. The three
test contemplated under the said decision are: Firstly, it is to
be ascertained that the detenu is in custody. Secondly, it is to
be satisfied that it has reason to believe, on the basis of
reliable material placed before it that, there is real possibility
of the detenu being released on bail, and that on being
released she would in all probability engage in more crimes
and thirdly, if it is felt essential to detain him/her to prevent
from so doing. As regards the case at hand, the record speaks
for itself.
18. We also note that the subjective satisfaction
arrived at by the authorities as to whether preventive
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 23
2026:KER:50667
detention is essential is also well resonated, valid and legally
subsisting. The involvement of the detenu in earlier offences/
antisocial activities and his association with others in
trafficking huge quantities of methamphetamine from other
states and Districts, and clandestinely operating and
controlling the said activities, had been borne out from
records. The fact that the initiation of normal preventive
measures under Section 129 BNSS and opening of Rowdy
History Sheet, proved to be insufficient to prevent him from
indulging in further narcotic activities are valid
considerations taken due note of by the authorities while
issuing Exhibit P1 detention order. We note that the
authorities had also taken into consideration the fact that the
detainee had been involved in other 12 different crimes
mostly in Chirayinkeezhu and Mangalapuram Police Stations.
The said offences alleged against the detainee include those
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 294B,
114, 307, 354D, 506(ii), 507, 509 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms
Act and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. We hence find
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 24
2026:KER:50667
no illegality in Exhibits P1 and P2 orders in the count of lack
of subjective or objective satisfaction. The report in the sealed
cover shall be returned to the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor forthwith.
W.P.(Crl.) is dismissed.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
WP(CRL.) NO.870/2026 25
2026:KER:50667
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 870 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF DETENTION ORDER OF 1ST
RESPONDENT BEARING NUMBER SSC1/189/2025-
HOME DATED 22-01-2026
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF 1ST RESPONDENT
BEARING NUMBER G.O.(RT) NO. 1289/2026/HOME
DATED 06-04-2026
