Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the father of the detenu, Sri. Dayal, challenging Ext.P2 detention order dated 12th December 2025, issued by the Government under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, "PITNDPS Act"), whereby the Government directed that the detenu be detained for a period of one year.

2. The process leading to the issuance of the Detention Order commenced with the submission of proposals dated 7th October 2025 and an additional report dated 15th November 2025 by the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, the sponsoring authority herein, alleging that the detenu was involved in three crimes registered under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for brevity) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) during the period from 2022 to 2025. The proposal and the additional report were thereafter forwarded by the State Police Chief to the Government on 31st October 2025. The Government placed the matter before the Screening Committee on 19th November 2025. Thereafter, the Screening Committee, after considering the matter, made its recommendation, and based on such recommendation, the Detaining Authority issued the impugned Detention Order on 12th December 2025.

3. The first adverse case, in the order of chronology, relied upon by the Detaining Authority is Crime No.1568/2022 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, occurred on 10th August 2022 and registered for offences under Section 22(c), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act alleging possession of 496 grams of Methamphetamine. The detenu was arrested and released on bail by this court on 14th March 2023, inter alia, on the following conditions:

                  (i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge.

                  (ii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Sessions. Court on the date of execution of bond, or within a period of three days thereafter, after getting exemption in this regard from the Sessions Court. If the petitioner does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit stating so on the date of execution "of bond or within three days' thereafter.

                  (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required

                  (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence during the currency of the bail.

4. After completing the investigation in the aforesaid case, the charge sheet was submitted before the District and Sessions Court, Thrissur, on 31st March 2023. The case is now pending trial as SC No. 459 of 2023.

5. The second case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is Crime No.193/2024 of Guruvayoor Temple Police Station occurred on 8th April 2024 registered for the offences under section 27(b) of the NDPS Act alleging smoking of Ganja Beedi in front of Kalyani Lodge near KSRTC Bus Stand. The detenu was arrested and released on station bail on the same day. After completing the investigation in the aforesaid case, the charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad on 26th May 2024.

6. The third case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is Crime No.1415/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station occurred on 8th August 2025 registered for offences under 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and Section 179 and 180 of BNS, 2023 alleging possession of 13.5 grams of Hashish Oil. The detenu was arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur on the same day. The detenu was granted bail in the said case by the Additional District Judge- IV, Thrissur, on 13th November 2025 in Crl.M.P No. 6684 of 2025, inter alia, on the following conditions:

                  1. The petitioner shall execute bond for 50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum.

                  2. The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all effective posting dates.

                  3. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences while on bail.

                  4. The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

                  5. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission from the investigating officer or court.

                  6. The petitioner shall surrender his passport and if he is not a holder of passport, He shall file an affidavit to that effect before his release from the jail.

7. After completing the investigation in the aforesaid case, the charge sheet was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur on 9th September 2025.

8. We heard Ms. Saipooja for the petitioner and Ms. O.A Nuriya, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the detention order on several grounds. The first and foremost ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is regarding unexplained delay in initiating the proposal for preventive detention. It is submitted that the last prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu is Crime No. 1415/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station, registered on 8th August 2025, in which the detenu was arrested on the same day. However, the proposal for preventive detention was forwarded by the sponsoring authority only on 7th October 2025, after a delay of 60 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no explanation has been furnished by the sponsoring authority for this inordinate delay, which has snapped the live and proximate nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the object of preventive detention, thereby vitiating the detention proceedings.

10. The second ground of challenge is regarding the pendency of proceedings under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It is submitted that prior to initiating preventive detention proceedings, the police had already commenced proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS, on 29th September 2025, seeking to require the detenu to execute a bond for maintaining peace, and those proceedings were pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Court, Thrissur. Despite being aware of the pendency of these proceedings, the sponsoring authority recommended preventive detention, and the Detaining Authority passed the detention order without recording any satisfaction as to why the preventive measures available under the BNSS were inadequate. It was also submitted that the detention order does not disclose any reasons explaining why recourse to preventive detention was necessary despite the pendency of proceedings under Section 126 of the BNSS.

11. Per contra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on the memo dated 18th May 2026, submitted that the detenu is a 'Known Rowdy' of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur City Police District, and is involved in several criminal cases registered at Thrissur Town East, Guruvayoor Temple, Guruvayoor, Kunnamkulam and Kodungallur Police Stations. It was submitted that the detenu is a habitual drug trafficker engaged in the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs procured from neighbouring States for the purpose of earning unlawful profits and that he, along with his associates, utilises youngsters for transporting such contraband. According to the learned Senior Public Prosecutor, the criminal activities of the detenu are not confined to the Thrissur District but extend beyond its territorial limits, thereby posing a serious threat to society. It was further submitted that, since the year 2017, the detenu has been implicated in six criminal cases, including three cases involving the illegal possession and trafficking of narcotic substances such as Hashish Oil and Methamphetamine, thereby demonstrating his continued involvement in serious narcotic offences and his utter disregard for the criminal justice system. It was argued that illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs poses a grave threat to public order, public health and the welfare of society, particularly by luring youngsters and children into drug addiction. In such circumstances, the provisions of the PITNDPS Act are required to be effectively enforced to prevent the detenu from continuing his prejudicial activities. It was, therefore, contended that the impugned order of detention has been passed after due application of mind and does not warrant interference by this Court.

12. As regards delay in initiating the proposal for the preventive detention it is submitted that that the last prejudicial activity relied upon by the Detaining Authority was Crime No. 415/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 179 and 180 of the BNS and Section 20(b)(ii)A of the NDPS Act, in which the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 8th August 2025. Since, the detenu remained in judicial custody from the said date, there was no immediate necessity to invoke the provisions of the PITNDPS Act. It was further submitted that the detenu had preferred a bail application before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thrissur, on 26th September 2025, which was numbered as Crl.M.P. No. 5651 of 2025 and came to be dismissed on 4th October 2025. Later on the detenu was granted bail by the Additional District and Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, on 13th November 2025. It is therefore submitted that some time was necessarily consumed in collecting the relevant records relating to the three NDPS cases registered against the detenu and in ascertaining, through the Thrissur Rural and Thrissur City Police, whether he was involved in any other criminal cases in other districts or States. Thus, the live link has not snapped.

13. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor further submitted that there was no unreasonable delay in the execution of the detention order. It was pointed out that the order of detention dated 12th December 2025 was received by the Sponsoring Authority on 15th December 2025 through the State Police Chief, Kerala, along with the connected records, whereupon the Station House Officer, Kodungallur Police Station, was entrusted with its execution. It was submitted that earnest efforts were made to trace and apprehend the detenu by conducting searches at his residence and other places where he was likely to be found. Enquiries were also conducted in the State of Tamil Nadu, and the Call Detail Records pertaining to the mobile number suspected to be used by the detenu were examined, followed by necessary follow-up action. These enquiries revealed that the detenu had absconded to evade the execution of the detention order. In this regard, the Sponsoring Authority, by letter dated 30th December 2025, reported that the detenu had deliberately gone into hiding due to the apprehension of preventive detention proceedings under the PITNDPS Act. It was further submitted that, acting on credible information, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodungallur Police Station, traced the detenu at Post Office Road, Thrissur, and arrested him on 26th January 2026 at about 12.30 a.m. Thereafter, the detenu was produced before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, on the next day at 11.30 a.m., where he has since been detained.

14. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor also points out that the detenue is an habitual offender who has consistently violated the conditions of bail imposed upon him by the competent courts. It was pointed out that, while on bail in Crime No. 1568/2022 of Thrissur Town East Police Station registered under Sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, the detenu again involved himself in Crime No. 1415/2025 of Kodungallur Police Station under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, thereby violating the condition imposed by this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 1904 of 2023 that he shall not commit any offence during the currency of bail. Consequently, the Inspector of Police, Thrissur Town East Police Station, submitted a report on 27th September 2025 before the competent court seeking cancellation of the bail, which is stated to be pending consideration. It was further submitted that giving scant respect to such bail conditions and his habitual nature of getting involved in subsequent crimes establishes that ordinary legal measures have proved ineffective in preventing his criminal activities.

15. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor further submitted that illicit drug trafficking poses a serious threat to public health, public order and the welfare of society, particularly affecting the youth, and that preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act has become imperative to prevent the detenu from indulging in further prejudicial activities. It was therefore contended that the impugned order of detention is fully justified and does not warrant interference.

16. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS, is vitiated on account of the inordinate and unexplained delay in sponsoring the proposal and passing the order of detention, thereby snapping the live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu and the object sought to be achieved by the detention.

17. At the outset, it is to be noticed that 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 the relevant materials that preventive detention is necessary with a view to prevent the person concerned from engaging in illicit trafficking 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 detention 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. At the same time, where the delay is satisfactorily explained by the time consumed in 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.

18. The explanation given by the Detaining Authority for the alleged delay is stated as follows:

                  “7. The Sponsoring Authority has explained the delay happened in submitting the proposal. Last prejudicial activity registered against the respondent was on 08.08.2025 in crime no.1415/25. The respondent was arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. As the respondent was in Judicial custody, there was no need for preventive detention at that time. Later, the respondent filed bail application before the Hon'ble Court on 26.09.2025 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court on 04.10.2025. Subsequently, the Sponsoring Authority initiated the proposal on 07.10.2025, as the respondent was trying to come out. The proposal was recommended and furnished to the State Police Chief through the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thrissur Range, Thrissur, the Inspector General of Police, North Zone, Kozhikode, the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Kerala. Later, the State Police Chief as per letter dated 31.10.2025 recommended and forwarded the proposal to the Government.

                  8. The Government has constituted a Screening Committee under the chairmanship of Law Secretary, as per GO (Rt) No.5064/88/Home dated 06.10.1988, for screening the proposals submitted under PIT NDPS Act for preventive detention. The proposal for preventive detention under PITNDPS Act was submitted before the Government of Kerala by the Sponsoring Authority as per letter dated 07.10.2025 and the same was recommended and forwarded to Government by the State Police Chief vide the letter dated 31.10.2025. Later, the Sponsoring Authority as per letter dated 15.11.2025, informed that the respondent has been granted bail on 13.11.2025 by the Hon'ble Court of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur (Crime No.1415/2025) and also forwarded revised check list and copy of the bail order in Crime no.1415/2025. The government examined the proposal and placed the same before the Screening Committee constituted in this regard under the chairmanship of Law Secretary on 19.11.2025. 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 PITNDPS Act 1988. The report of the screening committee is enclosed with this order. Later the report of the Screening Committee Report 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 03.12.2025.”

19. In view of the submission made during the course of hearing that an application for cancellation of bail was filed on 25th September 2025, we directed the State to file a statement with regard to the date on which the said application was filed with its present status. In compliance thereof, an additional statement has been filed on 8th August 2025, disclosing that the bail application was submitted before the learned Fourth Additional District Sessions Court, Thrissur, by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrissur on 27th September 2025. However, the application was somehow misplaced and subsequently after finding out the same, it was again submitted on 6th July 2026. The learned court accepted the same as Crl.M.P. No. 01/2026 and the case was last posted on 7th August 2026. The case is now posted on 11th December 2026.

20. To ascertain whether the live and proximate link gets snapped, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.A Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala (1990 SCC Cri 76) , wherein the Apex Court has reiterated an observation in Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (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 the 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 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)

21. On consideration of the materials placed on record, it could be seen that the last prejudicial activity relied upon against the detenu was registered on 8th August, 2025. The sponsoring authority submitted the proposal for preventive detention only on 7th October, 2025, after a delay of 60 days, and thereafter forwarded an additional report on 15th November, 2025, i.e., 99 days after the last prejudicial activity. The proposal was placed before the Screening Committee on 19th November, 2025, whose authenticated report was received by the Government only on 3rd December, 2025. Ultimately, the order of detention came to be passed on 12th December, 2025, nearly 126 days after the last prejudicial activity.

22. In the proposal to initiate action dated 7th October 2025 submitted by the District Police Chief, it has been stated that the application for cancellation of bail was filed on 26th September 2025. The order of detention, however, is silent on the said aspect. It does not appear from the file produced that the application for cancellation of bail was even forwarded to the Advisory Board. Admittedly, neither the Additional Chief Secretary nor the Advisory Board has considered the application for cancellation of bail.

23. In Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2014) 11 SCC 326) the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the phrase “live and proximate link” in the following words:

                  “6. 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)

24. As regards the contention relating to the question of delay it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Licil Antony v. State of Kerala ( (2006) 11 SCC 339) 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)

25. On the basis of the conspectus of facts narrated above, we are unable to accept the contentions of the respondents that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. While it is true that some time may legitimately be consumed in collecting the relevant records, processing the proposal at various administrative levels and obtaining the opinion of the Screening Committee, the explanation offered in the present case is only a narration of the procedural steps undertaken by the authorities. It does not disclose any specific or exceptional circumstance which necessitated the considerable time consumed at each stage of the proceedings.

26. Merely narrating the various stages involved in the process of preventive detention is not sufficient to establish the existence of a live and proximate link between the last prejudicial activity and the passing of the detention order. What is required is a specific and satisfactory explanation for the delay at each stage of the proceedings. In the present case, the respondents have failed to furnish any explanation for the delay of 60 days in submitting the proposal for preventive detention from the date of the last prejudicial activity, namely 8th August 2025.

27. Furthermore, there is a delay of almost 23 days in forwarding the proposal by the State Police Chief to the Government. Moreover, there is also an inordinate delay of one month in passing the order of detention. In the absence of any specific explanation for these periods of delay, a mere reference to the administrative and procedural steps undertaken by the authorities cannot be regarded as sufficient to sustain the live and proximate nexus between the alleged prejudicial activities and the order of preventive detention. Thus, the contention raised on the ground of delay by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance.

28. The second issue for consideration before us is whether the detention order is vitiated on the ground that the detaining authority failed to record its subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of invoking the provisions of the PITNDPS Act when the detenu was already in judicial custody.

29. From the record it appears that the detenue was released on bail on 13th November 2025. Although it is claimed that the application for cancellation of bail was filed on 27th September 2025, the same was not pursued and practically abandoned until an order was passed on 2nd July 2026 directing the respondents to produce copy of the application for cancellation of bail. The State respondents filed a statement on 13th August 2026 in which it is stated that a fresh cancellation application has been filed on 6th July 2026, as the earlier order was somehow misplaced. This clearly shows a gross negligence conduct on the part of the State respondents.

30. The materials placed before this Court further reveal that the detaining authority was fully aware of the fact that the detenu had already been enlarged on bail. The question, therefore, is not whether the detenu was in custody on the date of the detention order, but whether the detaining authority had arrived at a genuine subjective satisfaction that the ordinary criminal law and the conditions imposed while granting bail were inadequate to prevent the detenu from indulging in further prejudicial activities.

31. Although it was open to the authority to apply for cancellation of the bail on the ground of violation of the earlier bail terms and conditions, it appears that the authority concerned has practically abandoned the application for cancellation of bail until an order was passed on 2nd July 2026 from the production of the said application. The application for cancellation of bail when considered in the context of the detention order, it shall be presumed that the authorities wanted to pursue an ordinary criminal law to prevent the alleged detenue from enlargement on bail. There is no consideration of that aspect of the matter either in the order of detention or in the final order of confirmation. The detaining authority observed that the present bail conditions in the order dated 13th November 2025 are not sufficient to curb his criminal activities since he has violated similar bail conditions that have passed which did not reflect upon the fact that the application for cancellation of bail was filed and whether the authority should wait till the outcome of the said application. In the event the authority is of the view that the application for cancellation of the bail would require some time to be considered and the alleged detenue if not detained in the meantime would be a threat to the society, then that should be reflected from the order of detention. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adishwar Jain v. Union of India ((2006) 11 SCC 339) in which it was held as under:-

                  “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)

32. The detention order is conspicuously silent as to the filing of the cancellation application. Equally absent is any consideration as to why statutory remedy for cancellation of the bail would either be unavailable or inadequate to prevent the detenue from indulging in further prejudicial activity. The very fact that the application for cancellation of bail has been filed would show that the authority concerned was satisfied that ordinary criminal law would be sufficient in the instant case.

33. It is well settled that the provision of preventive detention is an extraordinary power in the hands of the State and must be used sparingly as it curtails the liberty of an individual in anticipation of the commission of further offences merely based on suspicion. In the present case, the very basis on which the detaining authority has sought to justify the detention is that the detenue had violated the conditions of bail by involving himself in a subsequent offence. The last prejudicial activity was considered to be a subsequent offence to arrive at such finding. However, the detaining authority had disregarded the fact that already an application for cancellation of bail was filed which they have not pursued. There is no consideration of the said application at all in the order of detention. Moreover, as explained aforesaid, there is an inordinate and inexplicable delay at every stage of the said proceeding.

34. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P2 order is hereby set aside.

35. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Poojappura, is directed to release the detenu Sri. Dayal, S/o. Preman, forthwith from the custody, unless his continued detention is required in connection with any other case.

36. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Poojappura, forthwith.

37. The records produced in the sealed cover shall be returned to the learned Public Prosecutor forthwith.