Jobin Sebastian, J.

1.This writ petition is directed against an order of detention dated 03.07.2025 passed against one Sanju, S/o. Santhosh Kumar (herein after referred to as 'detenu'), under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (‘PITNDPS Act’ for brevity) The petitioner herein is the mother of the detenu. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the said order stands confirmed by the Government vide order dated 29.08.2025, and the detenu has been ordered to be detained for a period of one year with effect from the date of detention.

2. The records reveal that on 21.04.2025, a proposal was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, seeking initiation of proceedings against the detenu under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act before the jurisdictional authority. Altogether, three cases in which the detenu got involved have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing Ext.P2 detention order. Out of the said cases, the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.283/2025 of Thumba Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 8(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. We have heard Sri. Gokul D. Sudhakaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. K. A. Anas, the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Ext.P2 order is illegal, arbitrary, and was passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned counsel, there occurred an unreasonable delay in passing Ext.P2 detention order from the date of the last prejudicial activity, and the said delay will snap the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention. The learned counsel urged that the jurisdictional authority passed the detention order without taking note of the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity, and the conditions imposed on him at the time of granting bail itself were sufficient to deter the detenu from being involved in further narcotic criminal activities. According to the learned counsel, the sufficiency of the bail conditions was not properly considered by the jurisdictional authority, and the detention order was passed mechanically. The learned counsel further submitted that the jurisdictional authority ought to have taken note of the fact that already proceedings have been initiated against the detenu under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”), 2023, and the same would have been sufficient to prevent the detenu from being involved in further narcotic criminal activities and hence, a detention order was unwarranted. On these premises, it was urged that the detention order is liable to be set aside.

5. In response, the learned Government Pleader asserted that the jurisdictional authority passed Ext.P2 order after taking note of the fact that the detenu was on bail in the case registered with respect to the last prejudicial activity and after being satisfied that the bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu are not sufficient to prevent him from being involved in narcotic criminal activities. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no legal impediment in passing a detention order against a person with respect to whom the proceedings under Section 126 of BNSS have been initiated, particularly since both orders operate in different spheres. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that there is no delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order when calculated from the date of last prejudicial activity, and hence the contention of the petitioner that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention is severed cannot be sustained. According to the learned Government Pleader, the order of detention was passed by the jurisdictional authority after proper application of mind and upon arriving at the requisite objective as well as subjective satisfaction, and hence, warrants no interference.

6. Before delving into a discussion regarding the rival contentions raised from both sides, it is to be noted that, as evident from the records, altogether three cases in which the detenu got involved have formed the basis for passing the detention order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the case registered against the detenu with respect to the last prejudicial activity is crime No.283/2025 of Thumba Police Station, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22(b), 8(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.'

7. As evident from the records, it was while the detenu was under judicial custody in connection with Crime No.282/2025 of Thumba Police Station that the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity was registered. The said case was registered on the basis of a confession statement given by the detenu when he was interrogated in connection with Crime No.282/2025 of Thumba Police Station. Moreover, from the impugned order, it is discernible that on the basis of the clue received from the detenu, the police party seized 5.207 gm of MDMA from a house and consequently Crime No.283/2025 (the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity) was registered on 01.03.2025. The formal arrest of the detenu was recorded in the last case on 29.03.2025. Later, the detenu got bail in the said case on 03.06.2025. It was on 21.04.2025, while the detenu was under judicial custody, that the proposal for initiation of proceedings under the PITNDPS Act was initiated.

8. On receipt of the proposal, the Government had placed the same before the screening committee constituted under the chairmanship of the law secretary on 05.06.2025. The screening committee, after verifying the proposal and perusal of relevant records, in turn, had submitted a report to the Government expressing its opinion that this is a fit case to order preventive detention, and the said report was received by the Government on 17.06.2025. Subsequently, on 03.07.2025, the detention order was passed.

9. The sequence of the events narrated above clearly reveals that there is no unreasonable delay either in mooting the proposal or in passing the detention order. We do agree that there is a short delay of around one and a half months in mooting the proposal from the date of registration of the case with respect to the last prejudicial activity. While considering the said delay, it cannot be ignored that altogether three cases registered against the detenu have been considered by the jurisdictional authority for passing the detention order. Therefore, some minimum time is naturally required for the collection and verification of records of those cases before forwarding the proposal. Moreover, the proposal was forwarded before the release of the detenu from jail. As the detenu was in jail in connection with the last prejudicial activity, there was no basis for any apprehension regarding imminent repetition of criminal activities by the detenu. Therefore, the short delay that occurred in mooting the proposal is of little consequence, and it cannot be said that the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the purpose of detention has been snapped. .

10. In the impugned order itself, the fact that the detenu was released on bail in the case registered against him with respect to the last prejudicial activity is specifically adverted to, and the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail are also extracted in the detention order. Likewise, in Ext.P2 order, it is specifically stated that the detenu had blatantly violated the stringent bail conditions imposed on him in the order granting bail in the earlier cases registered against him and involved in the last prejudicial activity. Further, it is recorded that, considering his criminal antecedents, it is evident that the bail conditions are not sufficient to curb his narcotic criminal activities. A holistic reading of the impugned order reveals that the act of the detenu violating the bail conditions and being involved in narcotic criminal activities is one of the materials which the jurisdictional authority relied on to enter into a subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the jurisdictional authority did not consider the sufficiency of the bail condition imposed on the detenu at the time of granting bail to him. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sufficiency of the bail conditions imposed on the detenu was not considered by the detaining authority will fail.

11. 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 narcotic 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 PITNDPS Act operates in different spheres. Under Section 126 of the BNSS, a person is only called to furnish security for keeping the peace. On the other hand, under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, a person who is engaged in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances is detained so as to prevent him from repeating narcotic criminal activities. Therefore, action under the PITNDPS Act is more effective. It is for the detaining authority to decide whether action under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS 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 the PITNDPS Act.

12. In the case in hand, in the detention order it is specifically mentioned that a report has been submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, to initiate action against the detenu under Section 126 of BNSS. There are no materials to show that the detenu had executed any bond for keeping peace pursuant to an order passed under Section 126 of BNSS. On the other hand, from the submissions made by counsel for both sides, it is gatherable that the said proceedings under Section 126 of BNSS are in the nascent stage. Therefore, the jurisdictional authority is fully justified in passing the detention order notwithstanding the fact that proceedings under Section 126 of BNSS are pending against the detenu.

                  In the result, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference. Hence, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.