Kerala High Court
Jijo vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2026
2026:KER:49548
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.
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 875 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
JIJO, AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O. MICHEAL, MUKKATH HOUSE, NEENDOOR,
VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683522.
BY ADV. SRI. VIVEK VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 682031.
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001.
3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL),
ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
OPPOSITE POWER HOUSE, MUNNAR ROAD, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101.
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
2
2026:KER:49548
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON & CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695012.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2026, THE COURT ON 07.07.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
3
2026:KER:49548
SOUMEN SEN, C.J.
&
SYAM KUMAR V. M., J.
-------------------------------------------------
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2026
JUDGMENT
Soumen Sen, C.J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the brother of the detenu,
challenging Exhibit P1 Detention Order dated 31 st March,
2026 passed by the 2nd respondent, invoking the power
conferred under Section 3(1) of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT
NDPS, for short).
2. In the detention order, the detaining authority had relied on
three criminal cases in which the detenu was allegedly
involved. The first case is Crime No.1867/2025 of North
Paravur Police Station registered under Section 22(b) of the
NDPS Act, wherein it is alleged that on 24 th October, 2025, the
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
4
2026:KER:49548
detenu was found in possession of 3.49 grams of MDMA from
a lodge room at North Paravur. The second case is Crime
No.217/2025 of Vadakkekara Police Station registered for
offences under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, wherein the
allegation is that on 7th March 2025 the detenu was found in
possession of 2.49 grams of MDMA and 0.03 grams of LSD
stamps. The third case is Crime No.864/2023 of Vadakkekara
Police Station registered under Section 20(b)(ii)A of the NDPS
Act, wherein 10 grams of ganja was allegedly recovered from
the possession of the detenu on 12th November, 2023.
3. The proposal for preventive detention was initiated by the
Sponsoring Authority on 21st January, 2026 and the same was
recommended and forwarded to the Government by the State
Police Chief by a letter dated 27th February, 2026. The
Government then examined the proposal and placed the same
before the Screening Committee constituted in this regard
under the chairmanship of Law Secretary on 5th March, 2026.
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
5
2026:KER:49548
The Screening Committee examined the same in detail and
opined that this is subjectively and objectively a fit case for
issuing order of detention under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS
Act, 1988. Later, the report of the Screening Committee was
sent to the Screening Committee members and Sponsoring
authority concerned for getting their authentication and the
same was received back to the Government on 19th March,
2026 and finally the order of detention was passed on 31 st
March, 2026.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in
the instant case the live link between the last prejudicial
activity and the order of detention has been snapped.
According to him, the last prejudicial activity relied upon
against the detenu is Crime No.1867/2025 of North Paravur
Police Station, Ernakulam, which was registered on 25 th
October, 2025 in which the detenu was arrested on the very
same day. However, the detention order was passed much
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
6
2026:KER:49548
later, only on 31st March, 2026, nearly five months after the
said prejudicial activity.
5. It is further contended that the Sponsoring Authority did not
produce the order granting bail to the detenue in the last
prejudicial activity before the detaining authority for its
consideration. Moreover, proceedings under Section 126 of the
BNSS had already been initiated against the detenu. Neither
the proposal nor the detention order, discloses any specific
reason as to why the existing preventive measures were
considered inadequate.
6. The learned counsel has further contended that though the
detention order was issued on 31st March, 2026, it was
executed only on 7th April, 2026 thereby, resulting in a delay
of seven days in executing the detention order. In order to
substantiate his contention, reliance has been placed on the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura and others1, to
1
AIR 2022 SC 4715
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
7
2026:KER:49548
show that the unreasonable delay between the date of the
order of detention and actual arrest of the detenu and in the
same manner from the date of proposal and passing of the
order of detention renders the detention order bad and invalid
as the live and proximate link between the grounds of
detention and the purpose of detention gets snapped.
7. Lastly, it is contended that the existing bail conditions
imposed upon the detenu by the competent court have not
been properly considered by the detaining authority. It is
pointed out that the detenu was released on bail on 31 st
December, 2025 and that no crime or prejudicial activity has
been reported against him thereafter till the issuance of the
detention order on 31st March, 2026. In the absence of any
subsequent criminal involvement after his release on bail,
there was no basis for the detaining authority to conclude that
the bail conditions had proved ineffective or that the detenu
was likely to violate the same.
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
8
2026:KER:49548
8. The learned Senior Government Pleader has filed a statement
of facts on behalf of the first and second respondents. In the
said statement, it is stated that the order of detention was
passed after considering the proposals submitted to the
Government of Kerala by the Sponsoring Authority i.e., the
District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, as per letter dated 21 st
January, 2026, 4th March, 2026 and 9th March, 2026,
respectively through the State Police Chief as per the letter
dated 27th February, 2026, 7th March, 2026 and 19th March,
2026. It is further stated that the Government examined the
proposal and placed the same before the Screening Committee
constituted in this regard under the Chairmanship of Law
Secretary on 5th March, 2026. The Screening Committee
examined the proposal in detail and opined that this is
subjectively and objectively a fit case for issuing order of
detention under Section 3(1) of the PIT NDPS Act. Later, the
report of the Screening Committee was sent to the Screening
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
9
2026:KER:49548
Committee members and the Sponsoring Authority concerned
for getting their authentication and the same was received
back to the Government on 19th March, 2026. The
Government examined the proposal in detail along with the
opinion of the Screening Committee and the order of detention
was issued on 31st March, 2026. The detention order was
timely communicated to the Ministry of Finance as per letter
dated 1st April, 2026, as mandated under Section 3(2) of the
PITNDPS Act. The detenu was arrested on 7 th April, 2026 and
detained at the Central Prison and Correctional Home,
Thiruvananthapuram on 8th April, 2026. Subsequently, as
required under Section 9(b) of the PITNDPS Act of 1988, the
case of the detenu was referred to the PITNDPS Advisory
Board as per letter dated 24th April, 2026. The Advisory Board
heard the detenu and the Sponsoring Authority i.e. the
District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural on 14 th May, 2026
through hybrid mode. After hearing and perusing the relevant
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
10
2026:KER:49548
records, the Advisory Board in its report dated 19 th May, 2026
opined that there are sufficient reasons for the continued
detention of detenu. After examining the report together with
the opinion of the Advisory Board with full application of
mind, the Government confirmed the order of detention issued
against Sri. Frijo, S/o Micheal, under clause (f) of Section 9 of
the PITNDPS Act of 1988, and ordered that the said detention
will be continued for a period of one year with effect from the
date of detention, u/s. 11 of the Act, vide G.O.
(Rt)No.1797/2026/Home, dated 22nd May, 2026. All
procedural formalities as laid down in the PITNDPS Act were
complied with in issuing the detention order and in its
confirmation and no constitutional safeguards were denied to
the detenu.
9. The statement has also disclosed the details of the crime cases
reckoned for the purpose of detention as per Section 2(e) of
the PITNDPS Act, 1988 which are as follows:
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
11
2026:KER:49548
Sl. No. Crime No. Police Station Date of Occurrence
1 1867/2025 North Paravur 24/10/2025
2 217/2025 Vadakkekara 07/03/2025
3 864/2023 Vadakkekara 12/11/2023
10. It appears that in respect of Crime No.1867/2025 and
Crime No.217/2025, the chemical analysis report revealed
that the seized contraband contains narcotic substance and
LSD. In respect of Crime No.864/2023, the detenu was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A)
of the NDPS Act, 1985 by the learned Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur, on 5th December, 2023.
The Sponsoring Authority also initiated the following normal
preventive measures against the detenu:
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
12
2026:KER:49548
11. The statement also disclosed the following events in
respect of the detention order which are reproduced below:
12. The learned Senior Government Pleader, relying upon the
aforesaid sequence of events, submitted that the detenu had
repeatedly engaged in narcotic offences despite being released
on bail and notwithstanding the preventive measures already
initiated against him. It was further submitted that the detenu
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
13
2026:KER:49548
had violated the bail conditions imposed in the past and that
even his conviction in one of the NDPS cases failed to
dissuade him from indulging in further narcotic offences. It
was also submitted that the existing preventive measures had
proved ineffective in curbing his activities, thereby
necessitating the order of preventive detention to prevent him
from engaging in further illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances while on bail. It was, therefore,
submitted that the detention order is justified in the interest
of maintaining peace, tranquillity and public order.
13. We shall first deal with the contention regarding the
alleged delay in passing the order of detention. According to
the petitioner, there was nearly five months of delay between
the last prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu and the
issuance of the detention order. It is contended that such
delay has the effect of snapping the live and proximate link
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
14
2026:KER:49548
between the prejudicial activities relied upon and the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority.
14. The PITNDPS Act does not prescribe any specific period
within which an order of detention is required to be passed
from the date of the prejudicial activity. What is required is
that the detaining authority must arrive at its subjective
satisfaction on the basis of relevant materials that preventive
detention is necessary with a view to preventing the person
concerned from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances. Nevertheless, it is well settled that
the prejudicial activities relied upon must bear a live and
proximate nexus with the order of detention. If there is undue
and unexplained delay in passing the order, such delay may,
in a given case, have the effect of snapping the nexus between
the prejudicial activities and the purpose sought to be
achieved by the detention. On the other hand, where the delay
is satisfactorily explained by the time consumed in
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
15
2026:KER:49548
investigation, collection of materials, administrative
processing, scrutiny by the sponsoring and screening
authorities, and consideration by the Government, the
detention order cannot be invalidated merely on the ground of
lapse of time.
15. In Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu2, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the phrase “live and
proximate link” in the following words:
“It is further true that there must be a “live and proximate link”
between the grounds of detention alleged by the detaining
authority and the avowed purpose of detention namely the
prevention of smuggling activities. We may in appropriate cases
assume that the link is “snapped” if there is a long and
unexplained delay between the date of the order of detention
and the arrest of the detenu. In such a case, we may strike down
an order of detention unless the grounds indicate a fresh
application of the mind of the detaining authority to the new
situation and the changed circumstances. But where the delay is
not only adequately explained but is found to be the result of the
recalcitrant or refractory conduct of the detenu in evading arrest,
there is warrant to consider the “link” not snapped but
strengthened.”
(emphasis supplied)
2
(1979) 1 SCC 465
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
16
2026:KER:49548
16. While dealing with the question of delay it is also relevant
to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Licil Antony v. State of Kerala 3 wherein it was
observed as follows:
” 9. While dealing with the question of delay in making an
order of detention, the court is required to be circumspect and
has to take a pragmatic view. No hard-and-fast formula is
possible to be laid or has been laid in this regard. However, one
thing is clear that in case of delay, that has to be satisfactorily
explained. After all, the purpose of preventive detention is to
take immediate steps for preventing the detenu from indulging in
prejudicial activity. If there is undue and long delay between the
prejudicial activity and making of the order of detention and the
delay has not been explained, the order of detention becomes
vulnerable. Delay in issuing the order of detention, if not
satisfactorily explained, itself is a ground to quash the order of
detention. No rule with precision has been formulated in this
regard. The test of proximity is not a rigid or a mechanical test.
In case of undue and long delay the court has to investigate
whether the link has been broken in the circumstances of each
case.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Similarly in Adishwar Jain v. Union of India,4 it was
held as follows:
3
(2014) 11 SCC 326
4
(2006) 11 SCC 339
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 202617
2026:KER:49548“15. Delay, as is well known, at both stages has to be
explained. The court is required to consider the question having
regard to the overall picture. We may notice that in Sk. Serajul v.
State of W.B. [(1975) 2 SCC 78 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 425] this Court
opined: (SCC p. 80, para 2)
“There was thus delay at both stages and this delay, unless
satisfactorily explained, would throw considerable doubt on the
genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District
Magistrate, Burdwan recited in the order of detention. It would
be reasonable to assume that if the District Magistrate of
Burdwan was really and genuinely satisfied after proper
application of mind to the materials before him that it was
necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him
from acting in a prejudicial manner, he would have acted with
greater promptitude both in making the order of detention as
also in securing the arrest of the petitioner, and the petitioner
would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a long
period of time to carry on his nefarious activities.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. The learned Senior Government Pleader has produced the
original file. We have perused the materials placed before the
Advisory Board. The Advisory Board has taken note of the fact
that the last prejudicial activity is Crime No.1867/2025,
which is on 24th October, 2025. Detenu was arrested on the
same day and bail was granted on 31 st December, 2025.
Thereafter, a proposal was made by District Police Chief,
Ernakulam Rural, the sponsoring authority on 21 st January,
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
18
2026:KER:49548
2026. An additional report was filed on 4th March, 2026, which
is for informing about the filing of the final report in the last
crime. Another additional report was submitted on 9 th March,
2026 for filing a bail order. The State Police Chief filed the
report on 27th February, 2026. Corresponding to the additional
reports filed by the sponsoring authority, additional reports
were filed on 17th March, 2026 and 19th March, 2026. The
Government placed the matter before the Screening
Committee on 5th March, 2026. The Screening Committee
recommended detention. Report was received back on 19 th
March, 2026 and finally the detention order was passed on
31st March, 2026.
19. Therefore, the above facts will go to show that there is no
delay and the live link is not snapped. The time taken is for
getting necessary reports and the report of the Screening
Committee.
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
19
2026:KER:49548
20. Now with regard to the submission that the Sponsoring
Authority has not produced the order granting bail to the
detenue in the last prejudicial activity, is incorrect.
21. The records disclosed would show that all relevant
documents relied upon by the detaining authority were
furnished to the detenu at the time of execution of the
detention order and acknowledgment thereof was obtained
from him. The Advisory Board has specifically recorded a
finding that the grounds of detention were definite, proximate
and free from ambiguity and that the detenu was informed
with sufficient clarity of the materials which weighed with the
detaining authority while arriving at its subjective satisfaction.
Similarly, no materials were produced by the Petitioner herein
to establish that any relied upon document, including the bail
order, was not served on the detenu or that such non-service
had caused prejudice to his constitutional right to make an
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
20
2026:KER:49548
effective representation. Therefore, the said challenge raised
by the petitioner cannot be sustained.
22. It is also evident from a perusal of the detention order that
the bail conditions imposed in the last prejudicial activity
upon the detenu were specifically taken note of and duly
considered by the detaining authority. In fact, the relevant bail
conditions have been expressly reproduced in the detention
order itself, demonstrating that the detaining authority was
fully conscious of the nature and extent of the restrictions
imposed upon the detenu while granting bail.
23. Now, moving on to the next contention that the
proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS had already been
initiated against the detenu and that neither the proposal nor
the detention order discloses any reason as to why such
measures were considered inadequate, we take note of the
findings of the Advisory Board that, since the detenu had been
involved in similar offences earlier, a rowdy history sheet was
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
21
2026:KER:49548
opened against him on 17th March, 2025, and proceedings
under Section 126 of the BNSS were also initiated before the
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi. The pendency of such
proceedings before the Magistrate cannot operate as a bar to
invoke the detention proceedings under Section 3(1) of the PIT
NDPS Act.
24. Recently a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sindhu K v.
State of Kerala5 considered similar issue and held as follows:
“9. While considering the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under Section 126
of the BNSS would have been sufficient to restrain the detenu
from repeating the criminal activities, first of all, it is to be
noted that proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS, and
action under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act operates in different
spheres. Under Section 126 of the BNSS, a person is only
called to furnish security for his good behaviour. On the other
hand, under Section 3(1) of the KAA(P) Act a person, who is
having history of criminal activities is detained so as to
prevent him from repeating criminal activities. Therefore, action
under the KAA(P) Act is more effective. It is for the detaining
authority to decide whether action under Section 3(1) of the
KAA(P) Act is necessary against a person against whom
already proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS, have
been initiated. Proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS will
in no way preclude the jurisdictional authority from initiating
proceedings under KAA(P) Act. However, when a person
5
Judgment dated 5th February, 2025 in WP(CRL.) NO. 1372 OF 2024,
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 202622
2026:KER:49548against whom Section 126 of the BNSS proceedings is
pending, the authority passing the detention order shall be
satisfied that the said proceedings are not sufficient to prevent
the detenu from repeating criminal activities. In the case in
hand in the impugned order, it is specifically mentioned that
there is every prospectus of occurring delay in the completion
of proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS and there is
every chance of detenu getting involved in criminal activities
during the pendency of the said proceedings. Of course the
said explanation in the impugned order justifies the present
detention order passed during the pendency of proceedings
under Section 126 of the BNSS.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. The said principle has been reiterated in Fathima v. State
of Kerala and Ors.6
26. From the above discussion, it is evident that the pendency
or initiation of proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS
does not operate as a legal bar to the exercise of powers of
preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act or the KAA(P)A.
The measures contemplated in the said statutes operate in
distinct fields and serve different purposes, one being to
secure good behaviour under the ordinary criminal law and
the other being preventive detention aimed at curbing illicit
6
[2025/KER/11288 : MANU/KE/0468/2025 : 2025 KHC OnLine 10764]
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
23
2026:KER:49548
traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances of a
person having criminal antecedents of similar offence.
Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the existence of
proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS renders the
detention order unsustainable is devoid of merit and liable to
be rejected.
27. We have also taken note of the fact that the detenue had
violated the stringent bail conditions imposed by the
competent court in Crime No. 217 of 2025, namely the
condition that the Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of
the commission of which he is suspected. However, the
detenue had given scant respect to the same and blatantly
violated the condition and got involved in subsequent crimes.
From his past criminal activities, as rightly taken note of by
the detaining authority, it is evident that even if he is released
on bail with conditions, he is likely to violate those conditions
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
24
2026:KER:49548
and there is high propensity that the respondent will indulge
in drug peddling activities in future.
28. Before we conclude, it is pertinent to refer to Section 6 of
the PITNDPS Act which reads thus,
“6. Grounds of detention severable – Where a person has
been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under
sub-section (1) of section 3 which has been made on two or
more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to
have been made separately on each of such grounds and
accordingly-
(a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or
inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or
are-
(i) vague,
(ii) non-existent,
(iii) not relevant,
(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such
person, or
(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever,
and it is not therefore possible to hold that the Government
or officer making such order would have been satisfied as
provided in sub-section (I) of section 3 with reference to the
remaining ground or grounds and made the order of
detention;
(b) the Government or officer making the order of detention
shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under
the said sub-section (I) after being satisfied as provided in
that sub-section with reference to the remaining ground or
grounds.”
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
25
2026:KER:49548
29. The said provision expressly deals with the principle that
the grounds of detention are severable and that an order of
detention resting on more than one ground is to be treated as
having been made separately on each such ground. Thus,
even if one of the grounds is assumed to be defective for any
reason whatsoever, the detention order would not
automatically fail, provided the remaining grounds are capable
of independently sustaining the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority.
30. On an overall consideration of the materials placed before
us, we find that the prejudicial activities relied upon by the
detaining authority have been duly established; the delay in
processing the proposal and passing the detention order has
been satisfactorily explained; all relevant materials were
furnished to the detenu; the pendency of proceedings under
Section 126 of the BNSS does not operate as a bar to
preventive detention under the PITNDPS Act; the bail
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
26
2026:KER:49548
conditions imposed upon the detenu were specifically
considered; and no unreasonable delay has been established
either in passing or in executing the detention order. The
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is
based on relevant materials and does not suffer from any
illegality, arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting
interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
31. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order
of detention and the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to
costs. The report in the sealed cover shall be returned to the
learned Public Prosecutor forthwith.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V. M.,
JUDGE
ms
WP (Crl.) No. 875 / 2026
27
2026:KER:49548
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 875 OF 2026
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER DATED 31.03.2026 PASSED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
