Preventive detention order cannot be passed against a person on bail

Kerala High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Non-Consideration of Bail Conditions Court rules that preventive detention under PITNDPS Act invalid without evaluating sufficiency of bail terms.

In a significant legal decision, the Kerala High Court has quashed a preventive detention order issued against Rifas Rafeeque under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act). The court found that the detention order was passed without evaluating the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed on Rafeeque, who had been released on bail just a day before the detention order was issued.

The bench comprising Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian, JJ., heard the writ petition filed by Navida Rafeeque, the mother of the detenu. The petitioner challenged the detention order dated June 24, 2025, which was confirmed by the government following the advisory board's opinion.

The court noted that the detenu was involved in five criminal cases, with the most recent case alleging his involvement in the possession and conspiracy to sell narcotic substances, including MDMA and Hashish Oil. Despite being granted bail on stringent conditions on June 23, 2025, the jurisdictional authority assumed the detenu was still in custody when it passed the detention order.

Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Anitha Mathai Muthirenthy, argued that the detention order was made without proper application of mind, as it failed to consider whether the bail conditions were adequate to prevent further criminal activities by the detenu. The court agreed, emphasizing that a preventive detention order can only be justified if the detaining authority is satisfied that the bail conditions are insufficient to restrain the detenu from engaging in such activities.

The government, represented by Sri. K.A. Anas, contended that all procedural safeguards were complied with and that the detenu's recurrent criminal involvement necessitated the detention order. However, the court found this reasoning insufficient, stating that the non-mention of the detenu's bail status indicated a lack of due consideration.

Concluding the judgment, the court ruled that the detention order was vitiated due to non-application of mind and improper consideration of the relevant facts. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, to release Rifas Rafeeque unless he was required for detention in connection with any other case.

This judgment reinforces the judicial scrutiny required for preventive detention orders, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating bail conditions to ensure they are adequate in deterring further criminal conduct.

Bottom Line:

Preventive detention order under PITNDPS Act cannot be passed against a person on bail without examining the sufficiency of bail conditions imposed on the detenu.

Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, Section 3(1), NDPS Act Sections 22(c), 20(b)(ii)(A), 29

Navida Rafeeque v. State of Kerala, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2806843