RADHIKA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the wife of Sanalkumar, who is detained under Sec. 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (the Act). Ext.P2 is the order of detention. Ext.P2 order is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) The last prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu is his involvement in Crime No.800 of 2024 of Cantonment Police Station, registered on 30/7/2024 under Sec. 20(b)(ii)B, 8(C) read with Sec. 31 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). It was while the detenu was in custody pursuant to his arrest in the said case that the proposal was made by the competent authority for his detention under the Act, on 26/8/2024 in order to prevent him from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It was pursuant to the said proposal that the order of detention was issued on 14/11/2024.

(3.) The first and foremost contention of the petitioner is that the delay from the date of proposal namely, 26/8/2024 and the date of the order of detention namely, 14/11/2024 has not been satisfactorily explained and that the said delay snapped the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention. The second contention is that inasmuch as the detenu was in custody when the order of detention was issued, it was necessary that the grounds of detention reflected the awareness of the detaining authority that the detenu is already in detention; that the detaining authority must be satisfied, on the basis of materials, that the detenu is likely to be released from judicial custody in the near future and that in the nature of the antecedent activities of the detenu, it is likely that, after his release from such custody, he would still indulge in prejudicial activities and that therefore, it is necessary and imperative to detain him, for the purpose of preventing him from engaging in such activities. According to the detenu, the order of detention does not show the said mandatory requirements. The third contention is that the requirement in terms of Sec. 3(2) of the Act to issue a communication in respect of the order of detention to the Central Government, not later than fifteen days of the order, has not been complied with by the respondents.