Kerala High Court Upholds Preventive Detention for Narcotics Trafficking Suspect in Judicial Custody

Court Affirms Detention Under PITNDPS Act, Emphasizes on Possibility of Bail and Continued Criminal Activities

In a significant decision, the Kerala High Court has upheld the preventive detention of Abhi Raju, a suspect in narcotics trafficking, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The decision, delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, dismissed the writ petition filed by Raju's father, Raju K.K., challenging the detention order.

The petitioner contended that the detention order was unwarranted as Raju was already in judicial custody, and there was no substantial evidence suggesting an imminent possibility of him being released on bail and indulging in further criminal activities. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay in proposing and issuing the detention order undermined its validity and that an alternative remedy of bail cancellation was available.

However, the court found that the detention order was validly issued after the jurisdictional authority satisfied itself that there was a real possibility of Raju being released on bail. The judgment highlighted that preventive detention can be enforced even against individuals in judicial custody if the detaining authority believes, based on reliable materials, that the detainee might be released and could indulge in prejudicial activities upon release.

The court referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, which established a "triple test" to justify preventive detention for individuals in custody. The judgment emphasized that preventive detention laws address urgent situations that typical legal remedies, such as bail cancellation, may not effectively handle.

Furthermore, the court dismissed arguments regarding the delay in initiating the proposal and issuing the detention order, noting that the detainee was in custody throughout this period, negating any immediate threat of criminal activity. The decision reaffirmed the distinct objectives and scope of preventive detention compared to bail cancellation proceedings, underscoring the necessity of such measures to prevent imminent threats to public safety.

The court's ruling reinforces the legal framework under the PITNDPS Act, allowing authorities to take preemptive actions against individuals suspected of engaging in illicit drug trafficking, even when alternative legal remedies are available.

Bottom Line:

Preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act) can be validly passed against a person in judicial custody if the detaining authority has reason to believe that there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail and, upon release, indulging in prejudicial activities.

Statutory provision(s): Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988

Raju K.K v. State of Kerala, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2818850