Unexplained Delay Snaps Live Link Between Last Prejudicial Activity And Detention Order Under PITNDPS Act: Kerala High Court
The Bench freed a 55-year-old woman held over 4.3 kg ganja case, but rejected the argument that bail cancellation must be tried before preventive detention.
Justice Anil K. Narendran, Justice Muralee Krishna S., Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that unexplained delay in issuing a detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 snaps the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the order. A mere recital of the steps taken up to the date of the order does not suffice, since preventive detention curtails liberty without trial.
The Court quashed the detention order against a 55-year-old woman and directed her release from the Women’s Prison and Correctional Home, Thiruvananthapuram, unless she is required in another case. It also held that exhausting bail cancellation before ordering preventive detention is not a general requirement, and depends on the facts of each case.
A Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed, “…Mere mention of steps taken till the date of issuance of the detention order is not sufficient, since preventive detention is the curtailment of the liberty of a citizen without trial. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the Ext.P1 detention order snapped in the instant case, due to unexplained delay”.
Advocate Anagha Krishna appeared for the petitioner and Ratheesh P.R., CGC appeared for the respondent.
The detention order dated October 17, 2025 rested on six narcotics cases against the detenue. The last was a case at Kozhikode Town Police Station, in which 4.331 kg of ganja was seized from her on April 17, 2025. She was arrested the same day and granted bail on June 18, 2025. The Deputy Commissioner of Police submitted a sponsoring report on July 3, 2025 and an additional report on August 13, 2025.
The detenue’s daughter challenged the order by writ petition seeking certiorari and habeas corpus. She argued that the delay of over six months from the last activity, and of over one and a half months after the Government received the Advisory Board report, was unexplained. She also argued that the order did not show why bail cancellation was not tried.
The Court relied on Sushanta Kumar Banik and Kunjumol P.G. to hold that delay is assessed case by case and is fatal only if unexplained. The Government placed the proposal before the screening committee, and the report returned from the sponsoring authority on September 8, 2025. The order gave no explanation for the period from then until October 17, 2025.
On bail cancellation, the Court noted that Dhanya M., Jancy Joseph and Sulaiman M.V. turn on their facts. It held that the matters relevant to bail cancellation differ from those governing preventive detention, particularly in drug-peddling cases involving a risk of repetition. That contention was rejected.
On the necessity of the exhaustion of the ordinary criminal law remedy of cancellation of bail, the Bench noted that “…before initiation of the proceedings for preventive detention by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Apex Court, it can only be said that such a course would depend upon facts of the case concerned and it cannot be accepted as a general proposition. Whether it is necessary to initiate the steps for cancellation of bail before initiating steps for ordering preventive detention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. When there is imminent danger of repetition of criminal activities by a person who can be classified as 'known goonda' or 'known rowdy', or a person indulges in drug peddling activities, cancellation of bail orders already secured by him would not be sufficient to deter such a person from indulging in criminal activities. Moreover, the conclusion of such steps is a time consuming process since the concept of cancellation of bail order or preventive detention is entirely different…”.
“…Cancellation of bail generally requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with the administration of justice, absconding of the accused, witness intimidation or evidence tampering by the accused, abuse of liberty granted to him by the accused, a fundamentally defective bail order, etc. But in the case of preventive detention, even if the bail cancellation is not available, the detention authority must independently satisfy the statutory conditions governing preventive detention and comply with the constitutional safeguards. The matters to be taken into consideration for ordering cancellation of bail are distinct from the matters to be considered for ordering preventive detention. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the aforesaid argument of non-taking of steps for cancellation of bail raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as a ground to challenge Ext.P1 order in the present writ petition holds no merit. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P1 order is vitiated due to non-consideration of alternative remedy of cancellation of bail granted to the detenue in the previous criminal cases”, the Bench noted further.
The writ petition was allowed and the registry was directed to communicate the order to the Superintendent by e-mail at once.
Cause Title: Sajina C.V. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:77216)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Anagha Krishna and Shabnam Kodalil, Advocates.
Respondent: Ratheesh P.R., CGC, and Chethan Krishna, Government Pleader.