MARIYAM C.K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The petitioner questions the detention order. The following four crimes have been relied for passing the detention order.

(2.) The last prejudicial activity was on 29/7/2023, which is an offence involving small quantity under the NDPS Act. In the fourth crime, he was found consuming 'Ganja Beedi'. The nature of offence involved in all other cases would show that he is in the habit of consuming prohibitted substances. Except for the first and second crime, two other cases are related to small quantity substances under NDPS Act.

(3.) Taking note of the nature of quantity involved and also taking note of the fact that he has been granted bail, we find that activities mentioned in the crime would not amount to vitiating the public order. The purpose of the detention order is to prevent recurrence of commission of offence and do not intend to use as penal provisions. The deprivation of a personal liberty through detention order has to be exercised with utmost care and diligence. The detaining authority has to apply mind as to whether he would be a threat if he is allowed to roam freely in the civil society. Individual aberration would not be sufficient to attract exercise of power for detention. In this case, we find that the detenu might be a user of prohibited substance, and he is not found to be involved in sale so as to become a menace to society. In such situation, we are of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at free, if he is not otherwise required under law.